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

December 5, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Dec-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 December 2002 Jeudi 5 décembre 2002

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING THE USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 11/17

ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI SCHOOL

WATER EXTRACTION

VOLUNTEERS

FIREFIGHTERS

WATER EXTRACTION

SISTERS OF THE ASSUMPTION

OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN

FINNISH COMMUNITY

CHRISTKINDL MARKET

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EVES TOLL ROAD ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA ROUTE

À PÉAGE EVES

DEFERRED VOTES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(EMERGENCY VEHICLE SAFETY), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (SÉCURITÉ

DES VÉHICULES DE SECOURS)

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

ELECTRICITY PRICING, CONSERVATION

AND SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉTABLISSEMENT

DU PRIX DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ,

LA CONSERVATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

ET L'APPROVISIONNEMENT

EN ÉLECTRICITÉ

VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACADEMIC TESTING

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HYDRO GENERATION

CONTAMINATED SOIL

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

INNOVATION INDEX

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

BORDER SECURITY

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

LONG-TERM CARE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 213

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MEDICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

CT SCANNER

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

ET D'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

NATURAL GAS RATES

GARDE D'ENFANTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER EXTRACTION

HYDRO RATES

HIGHWAY 69

WATER EXTRACTION

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

EDUCATION FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENSES ACT

(CABINET MINISTERS AND

OPPOSITION LEADERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

(MINISTRES ET CHEFS D'UN PARTI

DE L'OPPOSITION)

Thursday 5 December 2002 Jeudi 5 décembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

Mr Prue moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 215,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 215, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection des locataires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to the standing orders, the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation, and then we'll go in

rotation.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This bill does two things: first of all, it implements a two-year rent freeze for the tenants of the

province of Ontario; second, it stops the practice of vacancy decontrol whereby when a person leaves an apartment or tenancy and it becomes vacant, the landlord can charge whatever the market will

bear.

The policies of this government have been a total disaster when it comes to housing since the Tenant Protection Act and indeed even before that, since 1995. In

this province since 1995 there has been virtually no affordable housing built in any of Ontario's major cities, since the coming to power of this government. People with modest incomes are finding

it increasingly difficult to find a place to live.

In 1997, the Tenant Protection Act was proclaimed. Part of the hallmark of that act was to allow for vacancy decontrol, which, as I have described, would allow

the market to dictate how much an apartment rent could be increased whenever a tenant moves out of a unit and allows it to become vacant. As a result of that, rents have skyrocketed throughout

Ontario's major cities, and apartments which at one stage were formerly affordable to the vast majority of Ontarians have now become increasingly unaffordable.

Added to this, the Tenant Protection Act allowed for above-guideline increases, which in many, many cases for people who reside in Ontario have forced rents

above the rate set by statute each year at which rents would normally be allowed to rise. Rents have gone up across the board in major cities like Toronto by an enormous amount. Since 1997 in the

city of Toronto, or the case management area of Toronto, rents have increased by $226 on average. This is an unconscionable amount of money for people on fixed or moderate incomes to be forced to

pay. It is similar in other major cities. The cities of Ottawa, London, Peterborough, all the area around the greater Toronto area, have seen increases very similar to those being experienced in

Toronto.

Just so people understand what above-guidelines increases are, the guideline is set yearly by the province of Ontario and is no secret. It usually includes the

cost of inflation for the year before plus 2%. So if inflation is at 2%, you can expect a guideline of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4%. But I would suggest that setting a guideline of 4% -- or

5% for next year because inflation is starting to creep up a little -- is not going to solve the issue.

People cannot and can no longer afford the kind of rents being charged in this province. In fact, if you look at what the average rents are -- and I've got some

of the average rents. This includes all units: one-, two- and three-bedroom all mixed together. If you look, in Toronto central the average rent is now $1,075, in Etobicoke it's $1,055, in

Scarborough it's $1,018, in the northeast portion of North York it's $1,155, in Mississauga it's $1,046, in the northeast

section of Mississauga it's $1,050, in Brampton it's $1,070, and in

Oakville it's $1,001. That's just to give a few examples of what average rents have become in and around the Toronto area.

There is also the problem of above-guideline increases. Tenants all over this province a few years ago were forced to pay

money because landlords did not protect themselves during the energy spikes. When natural gas prices went up, tenants were required to pay for those. When natural gas prices, however, went back

down, tenants were not reimbursed, because the Tenant Protection Act does not allow for costs no longer borne. The tenants continue to pay.

This government is attempting to allow the continuance of the problem of above-guideline increases. Quite recently, the

Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs met with housing advocates in Ontario to talk about capping above-guideline increases -- not doing away with them but capping them at 1%; a hard cap, as she

calls it. Quite frankly, this is not fair, because there is no provision in the law to take out those costs which are no longer borne. You cannot cap above-guideline increases at 1% and instruct

people to continue to pay that year in and year out even when those costs are no longer borne.

Much has recently been made by the government and the landlords' lobby that costs are going to start coming down because vacancy rates are increasing. This, I

would suggest to all members of this House, is not a logical argument. Vacancy rates are starting to go up in some of Ontario's major cities, but, with the greatest of respect, this does not

address the issue. The issue is that the vacancy rates are going up on those apartments above $1,200 to $1,500 to $1,700 in rent. People who can afford to pay $1,700 in rent are finding that home

ownership is not an onerous task. If they can afford $1,700 per month to rent a one- or two-bedroom apartment, then they can afford $1,700 a month to carry a mortgage.

But this does not hold true for those people who are renting in the $700 to $800 to $1,000 range. They cannot afford the mortgage, and their rents are not coming

down. They are continuing to be hurt by above-guideline increases. They are continuing to be hurt by the $226 that they have been paying over and above what they paid five years ago, and their

rents will continue to climb, because the vacancy rate at the level below $1,000 in the case management area of Toronto is and continues to be around 1.5%, which is not enough to affect those

rents. Therefore, the people who are least able to afford the rents are going to see their rents continue to increase at amounts above the inflation rate. Those who are able to pay any increase

like that are taking the option of buying into luxury condominiums or homes and the urban sprawl that comes with them.

The policy is simply bad. What we need in Ontario is a cooling-off period, particularly for those people of low to modest income. Those people are the ones who

require our protection. Those are the people who require an opportunity to get their lives back in order, to get their finances back in order, and it is to them particularly that we owe a

cooling-off period. If landlords are now saying that they are able to reduce the increases, then surely it will not be a problem for the landlords if we impose this rent freeze at this time.

Equally, it should not be a problem for landlords with vacancy decontrol. If the numbers of apartments are becoming more and more available due to the building boom of high-end condominiums and

homes, then surely landlords would not be seeking the increases in any event.

We are finding that so, so many of the people of modest income are being forced into paying rents they can no longer afford. Recently, a woman in her 80s came

into my constituency office with tears in her eyes. She was being stuck with another increase, another increase which to her was astronomical. It was only at the guideline, but this followed years

of 4%, 5% and 8% increases, and she no longer had the money to stay in her apartment. She did not know what to do. This government has not done anything to help her. She wanted to know how to

fight. I told her to watch today how members of all three parties are going to deal with a problem that is now singularly beyond her control.

I would invite all members to think of your constituents. I would invite you particularly to think of the poorest ones, who cannot afford the rent and who cannot

afford for the landlord to increase their rent in the coming years, and vote for this bill.

Hon Tina R. Molinari (Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's my pleasure to speak on Bill 215 today. I'm going to be

speaking against the bill and I'll explain why.

The Tenant Protection Act is very important legislation in Ontario. It establishes an annual rent increase guideline to protect tenants against rent increases,

and it allows landlords to set rents at market value when the unit becomes vacant. In other words, it's fair to the tenants and it's fair to the landlords. What Bill 215 would do is undermine that

balance. In fact, Bill 215 would take us back to the days when new rental housing was scarce and existing housing stock was falling apart, requiring billions of dollars in repair. That's not the

direction this government wants to go.

Let me remind the House why our government passed the Tenant Protection Act. Rent controls discouraged new private rental construction in Ontario for more than

two decades. They created a massive bureaucracy, which meant it took months to resolve basic disputes between tenants and property owners, and they led to the neglect of the rental housing

stock.

Let's remember that under the former Rent Control Act, some rental buildings had hundreds of outstanding work orders against them. It was our job as a government

to change that environment, so we set out to design legislation that would protect tenants from unfair rent increases and arbitrary evictions, help create a climate in which people would invest in

rental housing, streamline administration and dispute resolution and improve building maintenance.

Since its implementation four years ago, the Tenant Protection Act has made headway in each of these three goals. We are now seeing the healthy vacancy rates in

many communities, meaning tenants in these areas have better housing options, and rent increases are in check. More than $283 million has been invested in capital repairs, upgrades and maintenance

in the repair of rental units across this province. Rental starts have increased substantially. In fact, between 1995 and 2001 the number of rental units under construction jumped by almost 500%,

to 2,717 from 550, and there were more than 3,100 rental starts between January and October 2002. We don't want to reverse these trends. We don't want to return to the days of no private new

construction and the billion-dollar boondoggles of the previous two governments. The honourable member from Beaches-East York says he has introduced this bill in the interests of tenants, but

tenants are not protected when rental housing starts are at a standstill.

I have talked about the primary benefits of the act, how it limits arbitrary rent increases, encourages new rental starts and improves maintenance, but there are

other benefits worth mentioning here at this time. The act also preserves tenure protection for tenants. It includes strong anti-harassment provisions that protect both tenants and landlords. It

allows tenants to apply for relief from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, and for abatement in rent in cases where there has been harassment.

In addition, the Tenant Protection Act provides for automatic rent reductions where municipal property taxes have been decreased. It increases the powers of

municipalities to enforce property standards bylaws, and with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, it gives tenants and landlords an efficient venue for resolving their disputes through mediation

and adjudication.

The Tenant Protection Act ensures that tenants are protected and that landlords can protect their investments and effectively maintain their properties. Bill 215

is a step backwards. It asks us to undo the good work that's been done with the Tenant Protection Act and all the improvements that are now happening with all our buildings.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today, and I would encourage the members of the House to seriously consider how they vote on

this issue. We don't want to go back to the days of rent increases and rent control. When they talk about rent control, they are out of control.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm certainly pleased to speak to this legislation this morning. I've looked at it and thought I would go

through and take a look at the Web site of the party of the member who brought this forward, and I have to be honest with you: I'm a little confused right now. This morning I downloaded the NDP

policy on rent control from their Web site, and it says, "Lower rents for Ontario tenants? The NDP says, `Roll back rents and bring in rent control.'" Then I downloaded another one from the NDP,

and it says, "The NDP says, `Freeze rents and bring in rent control.'"

So I'm a little bit confused as to where the party actually stands on this. The member this morning brings in a resolution that says to freeze rents. I think he

ran on the commitment to roll back rents in the by-election. And as of this morning, his Web site still says that the NDP is going to roll back rents. I really don't know which part of it to

believe. Maybe my colleague can clarify later if their position today is to roll back rents or freeze rents. Frankly, this is cute political grandstanding. We understand that. The reality is that

you need a plan that's going to be workable; you need a plan that is going to actually help tenants in Ontario.

Let's just make it clear that during the time period the NDP was in power, rents went up by about 23% for tenants. So if tenants are looking to the NDP for

protection, they certainly had their chance in their time in government to do that. Did we see rent freezes under the NDP government? I don't remember that, no. Did we see rollbacks under the NDP

government? No, I don't remember that. So clearly, it becomes a question of credibility. When you have the luxury of knowing you're not going to have the opportunity or the possibility of

governing, you can say anything you want; you can run on anything you want.

What I ask tenants across Ontario is, do you really think in your heart of hearts, regardless of what they promise you, that Howard Hampton and this bunch over

here are going to form the next government of Ontario? They can answer that question in their own minds. They don't have to answer it to me or anyone else. Are they going to realistically implement

what would be a disastrous plan?

Like this government here, the Tories -- we have two extreme positions that do not meet the needs of tenants. You've got an unrealistic, unworkable plan on this

side from the NDP and then, of course, you've got a government that for seven years has been in the back pocket of developers. They brought in a plan that shafted tenants across Ontario. They

brought in this vacancy decontrol, as they call it. They went to their friends, the landlords, the developers, and said, "How can we best help you?" and they drafted a plan and the Tories

introduced it. So now tenants in Ontario, under the Eves-Harris government, when you leave your apartment unit, when you move to a new unit, have absolutely no protection at all. The only

protection you have is the generosity of the developer and the landlord. That is what they have done.

This has been the worst case. This has been a gift for their friends by the government at the expense of tenants. Tenants have felt trapped in their apartments

under the Tory government plan, because if they dared move, their new unit would be under absolutely no control whatsoever and only at the whim of the landlord or the developer. So they've stayed

in substandard conditions and often they've been pushed out by unscrupulous landlords, forced out so they can rent that same unit for a much higher rent. That's the legacy of the Tory government.

Developers and landlords never had it so good in this province as they did under the Harris-Eves government.

Both of those positions are not workable. I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about what a real plan is for dealing with this problem in Ontario, and

that is the plan unveiled by my leader Dalton McGuinty, when it comes to fixing housing. We understand there's a balance necessary. We understand that you need a balance, that in order to deal with

the affordable housing crisis there has to be a balanced plan in place, a plan that would have real rent controls, that would ensure that the unfair and illegal increases faced under the Tory

government will not happen. A Dalton McGuinty government, within a year, will bring in legislation that will be fair, rent controls that will be fair, and we will protect tenants.

That's only one part of this puzzle. This government signed what is really a sham, a hoax of a deal, with the federal government to bring new money in. The

federal government came to the table and said, "We will put in $245 million of new money." This government signed this phony deal. However, understand this: in the way they signed this agreement

and the way they're implementing it, not one new cent of provincial money will go into housing in Ontario with the federal deal that the Tories signed, because they're asking the municipalities to

put in their portion of it. There's no new money. Under a McGuinty government, we have committed to matching the funds the federal government puts in -- new money and land -- in order to ensure

that we take full advantage, and we will ensure there are 20,000 new units on the market as a result of our co-operation with the federal government and the municipalities.

This plan that the NDP has will not bring anything new on the market, and we know clearly what this government has done since 1995. They've walked away from any

involvement in non-profit housing. Clearly, we are going to ensure that within the first mandate, 20,000 new units come on the market. We're also going to do what the Tories promised in 1995 --

another promise made, promise kept in the Mickey Mouse revolution. They said that they were going to bring in a shelter allowance.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Whatever happened to that?

Mr Agostino: What happened to that promise? They said they were going to bring in a shelter allowance to help tenants, working people who are at

the lower end of the economic scale, who were having a tough time paying their rent. They haven't done it. We're going to do it. We have committed; Dalton McGuinty has committed. We're going to

bring in a shelter allowance for 35,000 low-wage earners in Ontario to help them. We're going to ensure that these folks can use that allowance and find a place to live. We're going to build more

housing. We're going to have rent controls. It is part of a package; it is not in isolation.

We also understand that people sometimes struggle to pay their rent from month to month, and under the Eves government, Tory government rules, evictions are very

common for $500, $600 or $700 in rent that you haven't been able to pay because you've been sick, you've lost your job or other situations have come up. We're going to establish a rent loan bank in

Ontario. We're going to put $10 million into this so that people can apply and come forward and say, "I'm struggling, I can't pay. Here's the reason why." We're going to help you.

Interjection: They did it in the city of Toronto.

Mr Agostino: It has worked to some degree. As we look at this package --

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: Yes, I understand that my colleagues across the floor have a problem with helping people not get evicted. I understand that.

Because if you evict them, then your landlord and developer friends can simply turn around and hike the rents. I understand that's what you want. That's not what we want.

My time on this issue is limited. I am sharing with my colleague Mr Caplan, so he's going to go on more. But let me tell you that clearly the NDP plan is

unrealistic and unworkable. They ain't going to govern. I'm telling tenants, don't listen to what they have to say. You've seen what the Tories have done to you. There's only one plan, and it's

Dalton McGuinty's plan for housing, to fix this problem in Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I would say, with all due respect to the member for Hamilton East, that's what they said in 1990, too,

before the election, that the NDP didn't have a chance of winning government, and we certainly did. I would say to all members that, first of all --

Mr Agostino: They won't make that mistake again.

Ms Churley: He's getting scared over there, as they go down in the polls and we go up.

Laughter.

Ms Churley: The reality is, though, as you laugh at that, I would say to all of the tenants out there, Mr Agostino was not in this House when we

took over government after the Liberals had reigned and rents were going up 30% to 50%. There was a crisis in our housing market out there, and the NDP came in with a real rent control plan -- not

a balanced plan, as the Liberals like to talk about. They didn't support it because it wasn't balanced enough. In some issues, you've got to pick sides. Let me tell you, the NDP, while in

government, picked sides. We picked the side of the tenants and we brought in real rent control, tough rent control, the toughest rent control in North America, which the Liberals and the Tories

did not support.

They're saying the same thing today: they will bring in a balanced piece of legislation. Let me tell you what "a balanced piece of legislation" from the Liberals

means. I would say to tenants, be very wary of Liberal promises on rent control, because as I already said, when they were in government, rents went up from 30% to 50%. And not only that, but the

Liberals' new plan, which they're going to be bringing in to the election -- are you ready for this? -- has received the endorsement of ResREIT CEO Dino Chiesa. Do you know what that is? It's

Toronto's largest private sector landlord. The former head of Ontario's landlord lobby acts as McGuinty's chief of staff. And you want to know why their so-called tenant protection legislation is

balanced? Listen closely. Be wary, because the Liberals promise no rent controls if vacancy rates rise to a reasonable level. Doesn't that sound just like the Tory plan? That means tenants in many

Ontario communities will be worse off than even under the Conservatives. Analyze this plan. You will see it.

The Liberals also seem to be under the illusion, just like the government, that the private sector will build affordable housing in low-vacancy, high-rent

communities like Toronto and Ottawa. We were laughing hysterically when a Tory member was speaking about that very issue, because the experience under the Tory legislation of the past four years

would surely put that notion to rest.

These Liberals get up and laugh at the NDP, when they're the ones, along with the Tories, who voted against the NDP real rent control. Now they sit there

laughing and saying, "We've got a plan for the tenants in Ontario." With the plan they have -- just like the Tories -- they're going right into the pockets of the developers. The reason they get up

and laugh today is because they know it, and they should be ashamed of themselves. You are not going to fool the tenants of this province with your crummy piece of legislation to try to deal with a

really serious problem in this province.

You come to my riding and you talk to the seniors in my riding.

Mr Agostino: Don't lecture me. I've got more tenants --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order.

Ms Churley: They need real rent control. They need a freeze on rents and they need it now. You should stop laughing today --

Mr Agostino: Come to my riding.

The Deputy Speaker: I will not warn the member for Hamilton East again.

Ms Churley: -- and agree with the NDP and support this freeze.

Mr Agostino: Give me a break.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'm naming the member for Hamilton East, Mr Agostino.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

Ms Churley: I'm done.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): It's certainly my pleasure to speak on this proposed bill, Bill 215. In essence, the bill

proposes to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, to establish a two-year rent freeze and to eliminate vacancy decontrol. The rent freeze they're looking for is from December 1, 2002, to November

30, 2004. This is a very difficult issue. We've heard from the Liberal side and the NDP side. It's a balancing issue in terms of landlords and tenants. That's been going on for many, many

years.

In our view, the Tenant Protection Act is fair for both tenants and landlords. It provides strong tenant protection and allows landlords to operate and

adequately maintain their properties. We do have a rent control system in this province in terms of fairness to the tenants and also to landlords in terms of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, in

terms of very clear rules and regulations, in terms of how rents are increased, and how tenants can seek protection and how landlords can seek to increase safety and improve the buildings in line

with these guidelines.

So we have a regulatory system with respect to rent control and it's been in place for many years. Because there was a vacancy problem with respect to rental

units, we made some subtle changes with respect to ensuring that there would be an increase in construction with respect to rental units, and in fact, that's what is happening. It has been positive

with respect to increasing the inventory which is needed out there. We don't need any more controls with respect to the rental industry because, quite frankly, some people could tell you that it's

more than adequately controlled.

I was listening to the member from Hamilton East outlining the Liberal plan. I don't know how much money this is going to cost the province, but I certainly can

see that based on the Peterson's government approach to the rental industry, it's going to increase taxes and it's certainly going to cost a lot of money with respect to what they're talking

about.

They've got a number of areas they're talking about. They're going to bring in rent controls. There are already rental controls out there in terms of the rent

control system. What are they talking about?

The second thing is they're going to bring in around 20,000 new units with respect to that. We don't know how they're going to do that, but I think they'll be

talking to their developer friends in terms of how that's going to be done. They've probably already figured out how that's going to be done with respect to how they're going to bring those on.

Certainly any developer that was closely aligned with the Peterson government benefited by some of the nonsense that went on with respect to making sure that units out there were adequately paid

for. They also have this shelter allowance program that they're going to come up with for 35,000 individuals. Then we also have this rental fund, which is going to be $10 million in terms of a part

of their program.

What we're talking about here is, who is going to benefit from that? Obviously that money is going to go into the pockets of developers. That's where it always

ends up going. What we're here to do is make sure that there is an adequate supply of rental housing out there to make sure that there are fair prices and let the market work.

The market is working. The number of new rental units being built has also increased as landlords have incentive to develop new housing stock. This creates a

balanced market with fair rental prices. This is again a positive situation for tenants.

In my area of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, we have affordable housing and the rental vacancy rates have increased significantly. That's because of the policies that

are in place in terms of fair housing.

In Toronto, the condo boom -- I understand that in July of this year there were building permits sent out for over 60,000 new condo units in Toronto -- has

resulted in people leaving their rented units to go into these condo units, which they can afford to pay for, resulting in a very significant vacancy rate out there. When you have a significant

vacancy rate, landlords have to adapt to the market out there in terms of making sure their rents are fair. Toronto has benefited by a condo boom since 1996 and it continues.

Landlords are now reinvesting in their buildings. The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal reports that up to $80 million annually is being invested by landlords in

their rental housing properties. Only $2.5 million was spent by landlords in the final year that the previous legislation was in effect. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how low spending

on maintenance would lead to deteriorating housing units.

I want to close because I want to let my friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka speak. But the bottom line is that the market forces are in play and they're ensuring

there are rental vacancies out there. We do not need to make any of these changes, because we do have a very regulated rental housing industry and it seems to be coming around with respect to

having landlords invest in new properties.

Mr Caplan: I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill 215. I want to cast my mind back to a couple of months ago. I was out campaigning with Bob

Hunter, the Liberal candidate in the Beaches-East York by-election. I remember that Michael Prue, the candidate for the New Democrats, was talking about rent rollbacks. What happened? Why has he

changed his mind about rent rollbacks? It's now a two-year rent freeze, and then, God knows what happens after that. Was it the fact that a rent rollback was one of the most impractical suggestions

that the NDP has ever made? I think that may be it: a move that would kill any hope for development of rental housing in Ontario, probably, although it still remains an option in the policy

document posted on their Web site. Here you have a case of the NDP saying one thing in one place and saying something different in another place. I don't think they have a real policy when it comes

to protecting tenants, when it comes to having a well-thought-out plan.

It's also interesting that my colleague is talking tough about rent controls. It was only a few short months ago that the leader of his party was speaking at

the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. He said that there would be flexibility in the rent control system imposed by the NDP. In fact, I have right here his remarks from AMO on August 20,

where he said, we will "implement a two-year rent freeze and re-establish rent control with some exceptions if the vacancy rate was higher than 3%." Certainly a different story than what we're

hearing today, what we heard back in the Beaches-East York by-election and what we just heard from the member for Toronto-Danforth. It's interesting that the members aren't going to talk about that

part of their plan today.

As an aside, it's now interesting that Michael Prue, the member for Beaches-East York, thinks that rents are at an acceptable level. He wants to freeze them at

today's level. If he didn't, he wouldn't have changed his position on a rent rollback and introduced a bill to freeze rents at today's level.

It's nice to see the NDP is following our lead on some of the real reforms needed to the Tenant Protection Act. Members will recall several bills that I have

proposed in this House. First there was Bill 36, which would have made some real and needed changes to the operation of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, matters involving security of tenancy,

evictions, arrears and damages. Notice of hearings would have been sent directly to tenants by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal instead of depending on delivery by landlords. Credit records of

tenants would have been updated when payments were made in arrears or eviction orders withdrawn, contrary to the practice now. Eviction orders not executed would expire after six months. In

addition, maximum rent would be eliminated entirely.

Next I introduced a bill called the Affordable Housing Incentives Act. It was because members of the Liberal caucus realized that what we really need here is

reasonable and strong tenant protection and a workable strategy for the development of new rental housing. That is ultimately one of the best protections tenants can have: to have some consumer

choice and ability to get into some new low-cost, affordable housing. I introduced this bill to allow municipalities to offer incentives for the creation of affordable rental housing. I want to

give credit where credit is due: I was pleased that the government did adopt this measure by regulation through the Municipal Act, and I do want to put that on the record.

But I wasn't finished there. I introduced Bill 134 and we debated it in this House. Bill 134 would bring back costs-no-longer-borne provisions, in fact a real

rent reduction for tenants in the areas of above-guideline rent increases. It is a measure that would have given tenants some real relief. I'm surprised that my colleague from Beaches-East York

didn't introduce it in his bill today. It was relief based on decreasing costs for landlords, not an arbitrary decision to freeze rents for a time, really based on nothing except the fact that

those are the rents in place today.

Nowhere in Bill 215 is the issue of these permanent, above-guideline rent increases that tenants are facing and are really struggling with. If the member for

Beaches-East York wanted to be constructive in the policy about-face he's doing today, maybe he should have thought of reintroducing the suggestions around costs no longer borne. Even the

government is rumoured to be contemplating my changes, the provisions I put in Bill 134 -- which they already defeated, by the way. Maybe the member for Beaches-East York should be thinking about

that when he talks about the need for tenants to get some real rent relief.

I want to take a couple of moments, because I don't have very long, to remind the House that there is a well-thought-out, doable, workable plan here in the

province of Ontario, a plan that will bring balance to the rental market and will actually build some housing, and that is the Ontario Liberal Growing Strong Communities plan. It is a good plan, it

is a smart plan, it is a bold plan, it is an ambitious plan, and I'm proud to stand behind it and talk a bit about it here today.

We're committed to increasing the investment in affordable housing by partnering with the federal government to provide affordable housing for 20,000 families

-- $250 million, matching the federal contribution. We're also committed to making government-owned land available for affordable housing, providing a housing allowance for 35,000 low-income

families, ensuring real rent control protection for tenants, establishing a provincial rent bank, and establishing the Ontario mortgage and housing partnership.

These measures are reasonable and doable. Let's talk about what some of them would mean for tenants. We will repeal the Harris-Eves government Tenant

Protection Act. We will bring back real rent control. We will get rid of vacancy decontrol; it will be gone. We will always protect tenants. Where there are low vacancy levels, tenants will be

protected by real rent controls, and when there are high vacancy levels, tenants will be protected by having choice, by having a market that suppresses rent increases below those permitted by rent

control. Our new tenant protection law will protect tenants, in situations of high vacancy levels, against unscrupulous landlords who attempt economic eviction by way of selective and excessive

rent increases. Rent controls will remain in place whenever vacancy rates are below the threshold at which tenants have real choice.

It is a comprehensive plan. It's a smart plan, an ambitious and doable one.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I really was looking forward to participating in this debate because, as my colleague knows, I used to

be the housing critic and was a member of the NDP government that brought in real rent control.

Let's just put this debate into perspective. What the member for Beaches-East York is trying to do is institute a two-year rent freeze because of what's

happening in the market. We've got rents going through the roof. People who can't afford to keep their apartments are moving out to cheaper accommodations because they can't afford the increases on

top of everything else that's going on in their lives, like hydro and gas increases.

The second thing the member wants to do is put an end to what the Conservatives have developed, which is vacancy decontrols; that is to say, there's no rent

control on a unit once the tenant moves away. So let's say the rent is $700 a month for an apartment in downtown Timmins. There's rent control on it -- a form of rent control that is pretty weak,

mind you -- as long as a person lives in it. But if the person moves away, the landlord can jack it up to $1,200 a month and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, according to what the Tories

have done. We're opposed to that, and that's why my good friend the member for Beaches-East York, who is our municipal affairs and housing critic, has put forward this idea of saying, "Let's scrap

vacancy decontrol."

How did we get into this mess in the first place? Let's start from the beginning. Through the 1970s, and especially into the 1980s, rents were skyrocketing.

They were doing basically what they're doing now. There was a hue and cry from the public, from cities and communities across Ontario, that said, "We call on the provincial government to do

something, because people can't afford to pay their rent." You were having 10%, 15% and 25% increases in one year, and as high as 50% in some cases, because there was a shortage of apartments

available and landlords were taking advantage of what was a short market. As a result, our party, the New Democratic Party of Ontario, led first by Stephen Lewis and then by Bob Rae, put a lot of

pressure on the Conservative governments to put in place a form of rent control. Rent control was instituted in this province. It was weak at the time, but nonetheless it was a form of rent control

put in by the Davis Tories.

When we became the government in 1990, we instituted a real form of rent control that said there was an absolute cap on how much people were able to raise

rents, and the only time people were allowed to go above the cap was if serious repairs had to be done to the building, and then they were only temporary. So the situation was that you had an

absolute cap on how much people's rents were allowed to go up under NDP rent control. The only time the landlord was allowed to go over that was, let's say, if the roof needed repairs. They would

cost how much a roof was and put that into the rent for a period of three, four or five years in order to recoup it, but then that charge came off your rent. So you had real rent control.

Who voted against that? The Liberals. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Party was Mrs McLeod, the member for Thunder Bay. The Liberals stood up and

opposed real rent control along with the Tories. They fought us tooth and nail. They were saying this was bad, this was terrible, we were doing a disservice to the public of Ontario. But the

reality is that the only time we had real rent control in this province was the five years when the Bob Rae NDP government was in place. Who fought against that every step of the way? It was the

Liberal caucus along with the Tories.

So the Tories came to power, scrapped our rent control legislation and put in vacancy decontrol. And now we've got the Liberals, who basically have moved over

to where the Tories are on the issue. At one time they at least purported to be somewhat progressive on rent control, but now when we look at the Liberal plan on rent control, what are they calling

for? They're saying, first of all, that if the market is such that there's a reasonable availability of rental units on the market, they would remove rent control altogether. They're advocating

that there need not be any rent control system in a market such as Toronto.

Under the legislation they would like to bring forward, if there's vacancy in the units available in the city like Toronto or anywhere else, they argue, "Take

rent controls out." The Liberals are standing here saying, "Look at what the NDP is proposing on rent control." We have a plan that speaks to tenants. We're clear about what side of the debate we

fall on. We're not trying to be on both sides of the same issue at the same time. The Liberals go into one room with their landlord-developer buddies, where they get the big cheques for their

campaign, and say, "Don't worry, we're going to be good to you landlords." Then they run off to the rent control meetings and say, "Don't worry, we're with you, because we believe in tenants and we

want to do everything right for tenants." They've got a policy that speaks to both sides, to both groups at the same time. I say that's duplicitous. At least I know what the Tories are saying.

The Tories have clearly chosen which side of this debate they come down on. They have a philosophical belief that there shouldn't be rent controls in many

instances, and they're clear about that. I disagree, but at least I understand where the Tories are coming from. But the Liberals want to snuggle up to the developers, so they've got a line in

their policy that says, "Don't worry, if vacancy rates rise there won't be rent control. By the way, can you send me that big $10,000 cheque for my campaign?" And all those developers, of which the

Liberals are good friends, write those cheques and send them off to the Liberal caucus. There's not a snowball's chance that we're going to get a cheque from the landlord component of it, because

we're clearly on the side of the tenants.

What we're saying by way of this legislation this morning is that a larger debate has to happen when it comes to re-instituting a rent control system. But we

don't believe we could have done that by way of this motion this morning, because we know the government is philosophically opposed to rent control. So we're calling for the same two things -- it's

very simple -- that the city of Toronto has called for; the ones who are in the middle of this crisis of rental units took the same position as our caucus. Initially, the Toronto city council said,

"Let's have a rent rollback." We agreed with that, because we thought that if the city of Toronto thinks it's not a bad idea and it's workable in Toronto, it's something we're prepared to look at.

On further view of the thing, the city of Toronto said, "We'd like to be able to do the rent rollback, but that may be difficult, so we believe there should be a rent freeze," and that's the

position we're taking.

So my good friend Mr Prue, who is the former mayor of East York, brings forward this thing to say, "Let's have a two-year rent freeze, so we can at least

freeze the situation today so that when an election happens sometime between now and the next 14 or 16 months, we're able to put in place legislation as a New Democratic government, or it there's a

minority Parliament here we'll have the influence to institute real rent control." The second portion is to at least get rid of vacancy decontrol so we don't have skyrocketing rents in this

province.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm very pleased to join the debate today on private member's Bill 215, put forward by the member from

Beaches-East York. A couple of the key features, as pointed out by the member from Timmins-James Bay, are that he's talking about a two-year rent freeze and also that the lawful rent for a rental

unit is not affected by the rental unit becoming vacant or becoming occupied by any tenant. Those are a couple of the key points.

I think back to the days when I was at Ryerson and my economics professor talked a lot about rent controls. My economics professor was Harry Pope, who, I'd

like to point out to the third party, was a former NDP candidate, and an excellent professor I might add. His lesson was that rent controls create shortages, and I remember that very clearly. If

you have rent controls, the result is that you have fewer apartments being built and you end up with shortages.

I think what we're seeing currently is that we actually have a pretty good vacancy rate. I'm looking at today's Toronto Star and articles in the last few days

showing that 25 of every 1,000 apartments in the Toronto area are vacant at this time. That's the highest vacancy rate since 1972. I think this is a good thing that's happened under the current

system, and the current system does have some balance in it.

I'll quote from today's

article about the vacancy rate and just how hard it is to get people to rent apartments right now: "`You do whatever it takes to try to

get these apartments rented,' says Robert Herman of Pace Properties, which owns and manages about 1,000 units in the Greater Toronto Area. Besides lowering rents by up to $100, there's been an

emphasis on things such as changing kitchen cupboards, providing microwaves, installing ceiling fans at its properties, which run the gamut from low- to high-end rentals. `The biggest incentive is

lowering the rent and then the next step is doing whatever you can to entice people.' ... `The market is the loosest we've seen in modern history. Not since the early 1970s have we seen rates like

this and landlords competing for tenants,' says Vince Brescia, president of the Fair Rental Policy Organization.... In some cases the phenomenon is prompting landlords to drop rents by up to $200 a

month, in addition to providing a slew of perks.... `I've been managing buildings in Toronto for 20 years, and we've never had to put the effort into renting apartments that we do today,' says

Herman."

The legislation being proposed is to freeze rents, but we're seeing rents drop, so it would be against the interest of tenants to see this legislation

passed.

I would like, in the little time I have left, to talk a bit about the Tenant Protection Act, which does hope to achieve a balance. Bill 215 would strip away

the progress we've made under the Tenant Protection Act. I'd like to remind members of the four fundamental principles of the Tenant Protection Act: protecting tenants from unfair rent increases

and arbitrary evictions; helping to create a climate in which people are encouraged to invest in rental housing; streamlining administration and cutting red tape so the system works faster and more

fairly; and improving provisions for maintenance so landlords will take care of their rental housing.

The Tenant Protection Act has been an unqualified success since it came into effect in June 1998. It has met all those goals. Tenants are protected by the law.

They're protected from harassment and from illegal eviction. They are also protected by an annual rent increase guideline for as long as they live in that apartment.

I think it would be a move backward if we passed this private member's bill today and would not help the interests of tenants or landlords.

Mr Prue: I thank my colleagues, especially my colleagues from the New Democratic Party who left some of their time for me as well.

I'd just like to speak about, first of all, some of the points that have been made here today. The minister said the plan that the government has come forward

with is a good plan, but with the greatest of respect, it is presaged on the idea that the rents are affordable. The rents are not affordable. The rents are geared to average rent, which, as we

have seen in Ontario in most of the large cities, is now in excess of $1,000 a month. So if you can afford $1,000 in rent, I guess her plan would work, but the reality is that most of the people

who are tenants in Ontario are not well enough off to afford that. The reality is that the median income per household of tenants in Ontario is $23,215. Half of all tenants have less than that,

half of all tenants have more than that, but the median, which is a good figure, is $23,215 per household, not per individual.

If you earn that much, and if you use the figures of CMHC and other groups that suggest tenants should realistically be spending about 30% of their salary on

rent or on housing, that would be an apartment rent of about $580 that they can afford. The reality is that the average rent in all of Ontario is $883. In the big cities -- Ottawa, Hamilton,

Oshawa, Toronto, Peterborough and in the GTA -- the rents are in excess of $1,000. People who earn $23,000 simply cannot afford them. It is illogical that the government would stand there and say

that this is what they are attempting to do.

I also look at the silliness, with the greatest of respect, of the Liberal position. One has to laugh. They are challenging developers to build what they

cannot rent to drive down the prices of that which they already own. That, in a nutshell, is their policy, and I can't say it any better than that. It is simply not going to happen. It is illogical

to the nth degree.

We in the New Democratic Party, and in this bill in particular, believe we have to come to the rescue of those who are having a terrible time. The wages of

people in apartments are very, very low. The rents that are going up continue to go up, and they have a singular inability to pay them. The rental housing stock in moderate homes is actually

declining. The number of apartment units in Ontario is less today than it was in 1997, because more apartments are being taken down, more buildings are being sold out to condos, than are actually

being constructed. It is at the bottom end that we have to worry, not at the top end.

I would ask the members to bear that in mind when they are voting for this bill and to please give a reprieve to the million or so tenants in this province who

desperately need the prices to be frozen for two years and that vacancy decontrol be discontinued.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York has almost two minutes to add if he so wishes.

Mr Prue: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought that was all rolled together, so I welcome an additional two minutes. There were other

things I wanted to say.

Tomorrow, Mr Hodgson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, will be in Waterloo. He's going to be announcing some new rent plan or some new housing

plan. We're not quite sure what it is. But if I could look inside a crystal ball, I think I know what it's going to be. He's going to talk again about rent supplements, which this government has

promised for three years and has done almost nothing about.

He is going to be talking about the provincial funding, on the grand scheme of what the province is going to do with the federal monies. We remember that a

little over a year ago the federal government came forward with some $245 million for the province of Ontario to build affordable housing. The province has earmarked only $20 million as their

share, but beautifully ingenious in a way that one could only describe as Machiavellian, they are counting on an additional $180 million from municipalities and housing advocates and monies that

will not be spent for PST and other things to make up the balance. I am sure that is what is going to be said again tomorrow.

The reality is that in the year since this plan was announced, Quebec has come forward and started building homes in a big way. Nunavut has done it, British

Columbia has done it, all the other provinces have done something, and in Ontario we have built four units -- four units -- under this plan. I don't know what's going to be announced tomorrow, but

this bill will do a whole lot more for tenants than anything that's going to be announced tomorrow.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

Mr Patten moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to prohibit activities or the use of substances to protect the health, safety and

well-being of inhabitants of the municipality / Projet de loi 208, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités pour permettre aux municipalités d'interdire des activités ou

l'utilisation de substances afin de protéger la santé, la sécurité et le bien-être des habitants de la municipalité.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm delighted to address the Legislature today on Bill 208, the Municipal Amendment Act, prohibiting the

use of pesticides. If this bill passes, it will effectively enable municipalities that wish to pass bylaws to prohibit the non-essential or cosmetic use of pesticides on a precautionary basis --

and I underline precautionary basis -- if the municipality is of the opinion that there is a threat to the health, safety and well-being of its citizens.

According to Dr Richard van der Jagt, chair of the Canadian Leukemia Studies Group, an associate professor of medicine, haematology, at the University of

Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital, "There is now strong evidence linking pesticide exposure to acute leukemia in children (the most common cancer in children), to breast cancer (the most common cancer in

women), and to prostate cancer (the most common cancer in men). There is also clear evidence linking pesticide exposure to neurotoxic effects, to birth defects, to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, to

Parkinson's disease, to bladder cancer. This also harkens back to the days when evidence was emerging on the risks of tobacco smoking. I do not think it appropriate," he says, "for politicians to

be debating and weighing ... medical evidence" when in fact this evidence is medical science.

He goes on to talk about, " ... as precaution must be the overriding principle. In any case such as this, where there are serious implications to human health

and the environment, the precautionary principle must apply. Logic and reasonableness cannot argue otherwise. Note that the Environmental Protection Agency" in the United States of America "has

chosen to adopt a zero tolerance policy to any additional health risk posed by pesticides."

In my speech today I want to concentrate on evidence that pesticide use is not safe to human health and the environment, who is most at risk, and children and

other vulnerable groups. I say "touch on," because in 10 minutes I can only begin to scratch the surface. There's so much material on this particular topic and so many studies associating pesticide

use, exposure and acute and chronic health effects.

Where is the evidence that pesticide use is not safe to human health and the environment? For the skeptics who say, "Show me the research," I have here in my

hand over 50 pages of abstracts of peer review studies on pesticides that I would be prepared to share with anyone who says there's no evidence of links to cancer and chemical pesticides.

A 2002 city of Toronto public health report, Lawn and Garden Pesticides: A Review of Human Exposure and Health Effects Research, fully reviewed all the

subjects and highlighted three types of health problems linked to pesticides: (1) some cancers such as leukemia and lymphomas, (2) reproductive effects, ie, fertility problems, adverse pregnancy

outcomes, and (3) neurological effects, such as Parkinson's disease. The report states that all the potential risks posed by pesticides, particularly hormonal changes and effects on the immune

system, cannot be fully appreciated or predicted by the current ways in which measuring is being done. The health effects and potential risks from exposure to pesticides will never be completely

understood, they say, and therefore, "A precautionary approach concerning residential-use pesticides is prudent and advisable."

To those in the public health field, the precautionary principle builds upon the concept of prudent avoidance, which has traditionally intended to ensure that

"preventive action is taken in advance of scientific proof in situations where further delay could prove costly to society or nature and/or unfair to future generations."

In particular, I bring your attention to some recent studies. Two Swedish studies of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and exposure to pesticides concluded that exposure

to herbicides during the decade before non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis resulted in increased risk. A recent Canadian study on women living on farms in the Windsor area concluded that women

involved in farming have nine times the risk of developing breast cancer as non-farm women. A 1998 study in northwestern Mexico determined that children living in an agricultural valley who were

routinely exposed to the residue from pesticide spraying had poorer motor skills, poorer memory and poorer drawing abilities on balance than children living in better-protected foothills. There was

a show on this on CBC at some point, I believe, an exposé.

Exposure to agricultural pesticides is a well-known contributing factor to a number of chronic ailments, including some I've just mentioned, and damage to the

central nervous system, organs and possibly the endocrine system as well.

The London-based organization Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine warns that cancer-causing chemicals are now the number one killer of Europeans

between the ages of 35 and 65. Experts agree that 80% to 90% of these cancers are caused by carcinogenic chemicals in the environment in which we live.

I have many, many more studies. I haven't got the time to share them all here, but I am prepared to share them with anybody who has the interest.

In a nutshell, it boils down to this:

"Children are not simply small adults. They are more vulnerable to environmental threats because of their unique physiological developmental and behavioural

characteristics from conception to adolescence; children face a variety of exposures to environmental contaminants, from a wide range of sources, over which they have very little control.

"Kilogram for kilogram, children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air than adults. This means that children have a disproportionately higher

exposure to environmental contaminants in water, food, air and soil. Children can also be exposed to contaminants in the womb, through breast milk, and certain consumer products such as toys. Their

natural exploratory behaviour also places them at greater risk of exposure. Children put things in their mouth and they play on or close to the ground where contaminants tend to concentrate.

"In addition to a greater exposure, children have important biological differences. Their organs and tissue are still developing and so their ability to

metabolize, detoxify and excrete many toxicants is different from that of adults. Therefore, their mature organs may be less effective at protecting them from toxic exposures and effects. Infant

kidneys, for example, cannot excrete certain foreign compounds as quickly as adult kidneys.

"Today's children are just beginning a lifetime of exposure to cumulative environmental hazards, the likes of which no other generation has experienced. They

have more future years ahead of them in which they can develop chronic diseases that may be triggered by early exposures."

Over the past 20 years, there has been a fourfold increase in childhood asthma cases, with 12% of Canadian children now experiencing asthma and 29,000 children

hospitalized per year. It is responsible for 25% of all school absences.

Neurotoxins like lead, mercury and other toxic chemicals, even at low levels, can disrupt the brain's wiring, causing permanent cognitive, learning and

behavioural problems.

Known hazards and potential health effects of toxins: children exposed in utero or following birth to pesticides, PCBs, heavy metals and other chemicals may

face disruption of their endocrine system, stunted growth, mental disability and other neuro-behavioural and developmental effects.

The majority of pesticides in commercial use today were evaluated based on a hypothetical healthy, 70-kilogram adult male -- that's the test -- and not the

seven-kilogram child or the less-than-14-gram embryo. That is highly, highly significant. We and the companies do not test for children and their sensitivity to this. And there are many other

vulnerable groups -- the elderly, pregnant women, farm workers, agricultural workers etc -- who are very sensitive to what goes on here.

"I wish I could make you understand," say Linda and Alison Leeming, who have both been diagnosed with severe chemical sensitivity, "what a severe health issue

this is for thousands of people like us who are trying to live in this city. Pesticides are known to inhibit a variety of enzymes that are crucial to the function of the immune system." I could go

on and on.

In conclusion, I want to remind the Legislature that Bill 208 is enabling legislation. The current Ontario Municipal Act,

section 102, provides municipalities

with the power to enact bylaws that regulate the health and safety, morality and welfare of their inhabitants. If passed, my bill would make it clear through the new

section 130, the successor

section to 102, that the power to prohibit the spreading or use of pesticides on a precautionary basis, regardless of whether the scientific evidence is conclusive and available or not, exists in

the new Municipal Act which comes into effect January 1, 2003. Some municipalities have already sought legal opinion on bylaws. My bill will help to reduce the need for costly legal challenges.

Managers in the pesticides

section of the standards

section themselves say that the act doesn't explicitly provide for a municipal role in regulating

pesticides. Mr Bill Armstrong, who is here today, is a councillor with the London city council. They passed a resolution supporting moving on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Welcome, Mr Armstrong. I would like to thank him on behalf of all of us for all the work he has done on

this issue and for his commitment to getting this bill passed today. He called me some time ago and we had a discussion about this very issue, and I make the point today.

First of all, I support the bill, and I'm very pleased that Mr Patten has brought this very important issue before the Legislature again. Back in 1995, when

the NDP was in government, under Ruth Grier the NDP did a study on the primary prevention of cancer. That was published in 1995. It is a really good blueprint for the things we can be doing, should

be doing, that government should be promoting, to prevent cancers. There is a whole

section in this report -- unfortunately, it has been shelved and no action has been taken by the government on it

-- on the use of pesticides on food, with a number of recommendations, which indeed I tried to get all-party support for back in 1996, I believe. When I raised the issue and had a resolution before

the House, I particularly took the piece on the environment, including pesticide reduction, and did get support in the House to move forward on some of the recommendations, but the government chose

not to follow up with me on that.

That's why I so welcome this resolution before us today, because it is really important, as the evidence grows, as Mr Patten knows better than most of us here,

being a victim of cancer himself, and I'm very glad to see that he has now taken up the preventive cause. I hope everybody will support the resolution today.

There is another really important report that I would recommend people read, and that is called Stop Cancer Before it Starts: The Campaign on How to Win the

Losing War against Cancer, a report by the Cancer Prevention Coalition in the US. When you start reading these reports and studying the overwhelming evidence there is today, pesticides and all

kinds of other chemicals in our environment are absolutely without a doubt causing some forms of cancer. We know that childhood cancers remain the number one killer these days, except for

accidents, of course. That in itself is a stunning piece of information. For those of us with young children, or grandchildren in my case, we look at these little kids and, being aware of the rise

in testicular cancer, of breast cancer in women and of all kinds of other cancers, as the cancer levels rise, are they going to become victims? It makes us feel, as legislators here, that we have a

responsibility to them.

There is the opportunity today for the Legislature to pass this very simple bill or resolution before us. It amends the Municipal Act to allow municipalities

to pass bylaws prohibiting the "use of pesticides in non-essential situations if the prohibition is related to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality." It also

provides, and I think this is very important, that they may do this "on a precautionary basis regardless of whether the scientific evidence is conclusive."

I think Mr Patten and Mr Armstrong are aware of a concern I have. At one point last year, or maybe two years ago, I was in the process of preparing a similar

kind of bill and talked to some of the environmental groups about the best approach. They told me what their concerns are. If the bill passes today, I don't have those concerns. I'll wait to hear

what the Tories say about this.

The concern is this: according to them and legal opinions, in the Hudson case, the Supreme Court in regard to Hudson, Quebec, made a ruling that the Hudson

municipality was allowed under the law to pass such a bylaw, which they did. It was a groundbreaking case. The concern is that we know municipalities have that right now, but it appears as though

many municipalities are using as an excuse that they can't pass such a bylaw, that legally they're not allowed to do it. The concern is that if this bill doesn't pass today, it will be a further

excuse for some municipalities that don't want the responsibility because of the lobby by some of the big pesticide and chemical companies, that they will use this as another excuse not to move

forward: "There was a bill but it didn't pass, so we can't move forward until it does."

I don't want that to happen because it is my view, and the legal opinions and the view of the environmental groups involved in this, that municipalities do

have the jurisdiction and the right to do this now. So although I support the resolution before us today, I very much hope that the Conservative members will vote for it so that we make a very

clear statement today, on top of the Hudson decision, that makes it absolutely clear to any municipality that they undoubtedly have the right to pass such a resolution.

I read in Stop Cancer Before it Starts a very interesting quote. There's lots of interesting information in these reports, including the report by Ruth Grier

and others. What they say is:

"Whether against cancer or terrorism, war is best fought by pre-emptive strategies based on prevention, rather than based reactively on damage control. As

importantly, the war against cancer needs to be waged by leadership accountable to the public interest and not to special agenda interests of the cancer establishment and ... if not criminal,

powerful corporations."

This is a very strong statement by a group of people who are trying to get governments to take responsibility, to deal with the fact that there's now an

estimation that cancer is going to increase by 50%, I believe double, over the next several years. This is something we can no longer take lightly. This is an opportunity for us, as responsible

legislators today from all three parties, to support this resolution before us and give a very clear statement to municipalities that we support their efforts, that we support the efforts by people

like Mr Armstrong, who is here today, and community activists and other councillors who want to take action and help their communities protect their children, their pets, all of the people in their

communities.

I want to point out before I sit down and leave some time for my colleagues a very interesting resolution that was just passed, and we applaud them for that.

The Ontario town of Cobalt, with little fanfare -- we haven't heard much about this, but Mr Patten is aware of it -- has become the first place in the province to ban pesticide use on public

property. It has been done; it can be done. Yes, they said there was quite a lobby from a lawn care company, but beyond that there was very little opposition to this. They have done it already.

This has now moved beyond what was at one time, when I first got involved in this issue, seen as something that only those on the fringes of the environmental

movement supported. It's moved way beyond that. It has now become pretty mainstream. There's a whole list of mainstream organizations that have the facts and the information and know that we have

to move, that we have to remove the use of many of those pesticides, and are calling for governments to act.

In closing, I congratulate Mr Patten and also Mr Armstrong for their fight to move forward in helping municipalities take the ball here and run with it and do

the right thing for the citizens of Ontario. By a long shot, it's only one piece. There's no time today to get into all the other chemicals that are out there in the water we drink and in the food

we eat and in the air we breathe, but this is one very important piece of it today. I hope very much that all members of the Legislature will vote for this very important resolution today.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the member's Bill 208,

An Act to amend

the Municipal Act, 2001 to permit municipalities to prohibit activities or the use of substances to protect the health, safety and well-being of inhabitants of the municipality.

As has already been mentioned by the members across, over the past few years there has been a growing awareness about the use of pesticides in our communities.

In my own community, the city of Barrie, certainly I've heard of that in terms of concerns with respect to their use, for example, around nursing homes, which is an area of significant concern

because the people who are there are obviously not in 100% health. We don't want to make them any more vulnerable than they already are in terms of this type of activity.

With it, there has been a growing concern about the potential environmental and human health effects of pesticides. That also goes with respect to the use of

pesticides on school grounds, just to name another example with respect to where that would be used in terms of pitches on school grounds. City parks are another area. It also applies with respect

to individual homeowners and what they do with their properties.

We all know there are appropriate uses for pesticides. If managed carefully, in many circumstances these chemicals can help contain infestation that would

otherwise threaten our environment, our health, our food supply and our local economies.

A case in point is the West Nile virus in Manitoba, and in Winnipeg in particular, in terms of the actions that had to be taken by the municipality to deal

with that particular situation, which is not over; it is ongoing. That could face us here in this province in terms of the same level that it has faced out in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

We also cannot deny that some pesticides may pose a threat to our health if they are used excessively or indiscriminately. Because of this, there is a movement

across the country to restrict the non-essential use of pesticides. We support various initiatives to reduce the reliance on the use of pesticides. This government also respects municipalities'

decisions to consult with stakeholders and develop pesticide strategies that are tailored to local concerns, circumstances and desires.

I want to remind all the members of the House, and especially the member for Ottawa Centre, that Health Canada has the lead role in evaluating human health and

environmental effects of pesticides and makes decisions whether or not to register them for use in this country. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency is also responsible for ensuring

that pesticides can be safely used when label directions are followed. They are the gatekeeper in terms of dealing with pesticides in this country.

Our government is encouraged that earlier this year the federal government committed to reintroduce pesticide legislation to strengthen and modernize its Pest

Control Products Act to protect the health of all Canadians. We agree with the Pest Control Safety Council of Canada that we need to provide more information to the public about the safe and

responsible use of pest control products and support integrated pest management principles to reduce reliance on pesticides.

We feel it is important to respect which level of government is best suited to deal with certain issues. Ontario does have a role to play in pesticide

management, and we already have a comprehensive program in place. Our province, through the Pesticides Act, continues to regulate the sale, use, transportation, storage and disposal of federally

registered pesticides through requirements for education, licensing and permits.

The Ministry of the Environment is also participating in the joint federal-provincial Healthy Lawns Strategy to reduce reliance on pesticide use on lawns. And

Ontario is participating in the initiative with the federal government and the other provinces and territories to harmonize pesticide classification across this country, eliminate duplication,

improve and streamline the regulatory system, and place strict controls on consumer access to higher-risk domestic pesticides. This way, Ontario's pesticide regulations are consistent with other

jurisdictions and our communities have clear guidelines on pesticide use. Working in partnership with the federal government on this issue benefits everyone. Trying to interfere in issues that are

clearly the jurisdiction of other levels of government would have the opposite effect.

I would say this: this government has already acted responsibly. The member across has already mentioned

section 102 of the Municipal Act, which will take

effect in the year 2003. I think what he's looking for here -- and he's been very honest and upfront about it -- is to make sure there are no legal issues here. There is provision in

section 102

with respect to enabling other municipalities to deal with the situations I am speaking about. What he is suggesting is that there may be legal challenges. There always are legal challenges,

perhaps, when you move into an area where companies feel they are being impacted and want to test the law with respect to how they can deal with that. That would apply also with respect to the

proposed amendments my friend is putting forth, because it does provide the municipalities with discretionary power to deal with prohibiting the spreading or use of pesticides in non-essential

situations. Obviously, that would be something that would be subject to

interpretation itself.

A municipality also would be given the discretion to prohibit the spreading or use of pesticides on a precautionary basis, regardless of whether the scientific

evidence is conclusive or not, if the municipality is of the opinion that there is a threat to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality.

What the member is trying to accomplish here, and I recognize that, is he's trying to put forth, in a situation that could be construed not to be strong enough

-- it may be strong enough, subject to judicial

interpretation, but that's not the point the member is trying to make. He's trying to make the point that it has to be explicit enough so there won't

be any vagueness with respect to what the municipality is trying to accomplish in terms of what they're doing.

Interjection.

Mr Tascona: This is debate, member for Kingston. I've got a right to speak here and I intend to. I don't need to be heckled by the member for

Kingston. I'm trying to deal with the debate here from the member because it's well thoughtout, and I support the principles that he's putting forth with respect to this issue.

I believe we have a strong framework of environmental and health protection in place. I would say on behalf of my colleagues that certainly this debate is

worthwhile; it's timely. I think the member for Toronto-Danforth put it bluntly in terms of, there has to be action taken by municipalities to ensure that this issue is dealt with. That's why they

had the Hudson decision that, I believe, went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to giving the municipalities that clear right. That's what all this debate is about: to ensure

that this issue is dealt with fairly, responsibly, and is not going to be judicially overturned.

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'm pleased to rise and join in this debate. It's a serious issue. I want to provide,

at least in passing, an affirmation for my good friend Richard Patten. I've known Richard for over 30 years. We grew up together in the YMCA movement. As younger men we fought valiant fights

together many times to try to make a real difference. I'm pleased to be here in this place with my friend in support of his consistent desire to stand for what is good, proper, progressive and

right.

One of the members opposite had made a number of passing references to the legal issue. I think one of the things that municipalities want more than anything

else -- and as a former mayor of that wonderful municipality the town of Flamborough, I can attest to this -- is the sense that the provincial government, particularly when they have their

spokespersons refer to being in support of the principles behind a particular piece of legislation, are prepared to go the next step and to assist and clarify something in the face of a legal

challenge, which clearly I think would come given the complexity and confusion around the Hudson case, notwithstanding the Canadian Environmental Law Association brief suggesting that in their

review they felt the municipalities do have this option.

We've got a situation -- my colleague for Kingston may have more to say about this -- the infamous contradiction tests, conflicting goods, conflicting laws.

What's going to happen, I suspect, with certain municipalities that decide, believing a wink is like a nod in racing to a blind horse, believing that the province is winking through

section 102 of

Bill 111 to move forward, you're going to get into this argument about competing goods. I agree with the member opposite that we do need strong laws in place. I don't think the laws are strong

enough. We have an opportunity today to really help with that.

By way of background, pesticides are clearly toxic. They kill organisms that we deem undesirable. There appears to be growing evidence that they also have the

potential to kill organisms we love, organisms like wives, kids and pets and what have you. Given the international recognition in law of the precautionary principle, I think we can take some

solace and advice from George Bush to the south when he says, "Let's make sure we never mis-underestimate the potential for problems here." I think there's good evidence that we're at risk. We

shouldn't have to wait for the science to prove that conclusively before we act.

All across Ontario throughout municipalities you have a groundswell of concern and a strong desire in a number of areas to do something about it.

Municipalities are struggling with the tools they've got. They're trying naturalization projects, better plant management projects, and some are even into the use of biopesticides, although that's

a developing field.

I guess I see this as a bit like the second-hand smoke debate. We know for a certainty now that second-hand smoke is hazardous to a person's health and is

killing numerous people across the country. The province has failed to move in a generic, comprehensive way recognizing that it's both a health and business issue. Municipalities have had to pick

that up and there have been some court challenges to that. I would plead with this government -- you're good at downloading -- this is one responsibility that ought to be downloaded, and

quickly.

I want to suggest that in the absence of clear authority and your moving to support this bill, there may well be plausible evidence quoted in a subsequent

court of law that this Legislative Assembly actually intended to preclude municipal regulation with respect to pesticide use. I think if that were to happen, that would indeed be an extremely

unfortunate day for the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today in support of this bill and I would ask all members of the House to seriously consider

supporting it.

We need, as a society, to embrace the very basic concept that is being put forward here, and that is to minimize the use of pesticides wherever and whenever we

can do so. One of the ways we can do it is to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. This serves not to protect our food source against unwanted predators or pests but is only to make sure that we

don't have the inconvenience of a few dandelions or things in our lawns that we don't otherwise want to have.

In East York, when I was the mayor, we took what was then considered to be a very bold step, in all of our municipal lands and in the school board lands, to

ban the use of pesticides on public property. We were one of the first municipalities in Ontario to do so. There were people who came forward and argued with us that this was going to create havoc

in our municipality. In fact, some homeowners who lived adjacent to those municipal properties talked about blowing dandelion seeds, that we would have dandelions on our lawn that in the prevailing

wind would blow over on to their lawn, and they urged us not to discontinue the spraying.

But we thought the better of it and, to this day, I'm glad that we did so because in reality the amount of spraying went immediately down in all of the

neighbourhood properties as well when they saw that we didn't get infested. We used other lawn management tools to make sure the lawns stayed green and healthy. Spraying, if it ever did occur with

major infestations, might take place once every five years as opposed to five times a year, as had been the common practice before that.

In the court decision of Hudson in Quebec that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, it has been ruled that municipalities have the right to pass

this legislation, and certainly many municipalities have had an opportunity to look at it. My own time at the amalgamated city of Toronto, and on the board of health of the city of Toronto, showed

that this is a difficult proposition. When the board of health came forward with a proposition to do exactly what the city of Hudson in Quebec had done, we were met with a great many people who

came forward in opposition. Almost all of them were the owners or the employees of lawn care facilities who came forward to argue about their livelihood and to make what I considered the specious

argument that these pesticides would do no one any harm, that they lived and worked with them and it wasn't going to cause them any harm.

I remember raising their ire when I talked about Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, that I had read some 30 years before, when she first raised the alarm

bells. The alarm bells are going off with even greater frequency today. When one exposes oneself to potential carcinogens, the damage is done not at the moment, but sometimes many years later.

The lobby of the pesticide companies notwithstanding, it is a good idea wherever possible to reduce the use of pesticides, as this bill intends. It is our

belief that municipalities already have the right and that this bill may not confer something they do not already have. However, having said that, if it helps to assuage the fears of the municipal

governments to pass the bill, if they can see there is provincial legislation that will obviate the necessity of their going to court, if they feel they are less likely to be sued by the pesticide

companies if they enact it, then it is my belief that they will enact what is proper for their communities and for all the residents of this province.

For that reason I commend the bill and Mr Patten for bringing it forward. I would ask that all members of the House consider the safety of themselves, their

children, their neighbours and their friends and relatives and take the long-term view that it's better to have a few dandelions than to suffer cancer.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill 208, Municipal Amendment Act (Prohibiting Use of

Pesticides), 2002. I would like to address this proposed legislation in the context of what communities are already doing, and we've heard some mention of that in the debate today.

A number of communities across Ontario have taken measures to manage any potential health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides,

including herbicides and insecticides. I do want to inform the members of the House that I'm not in support of this approach in Bill 208.

Fairly simply, this represents what I consider another piece of red tape to add to the myriad constellation of rules and regulations that we have in our

society. I don't feel that it really solves anything; it solves little and proposes ideas that many municipalities across the province are already contemplating.

Given the progress that has already been made on pesticide management, Bill 208 is about as relevant as a proposal to send the first man to the moon. This has

already been done. I had an opportunity to speak with Buzz Aldrin a number of years ago. He has been there and back. So have Scott Carpenter and Neil Armstrong. They've been there, they've done

that, and I suggest that many municipalities have also taken these measures. It's been done; it's on the way.

People are telling us to remove red tape and avoid duplication. If we push forward with legislation like this, we're ignoring these pleas and adding yet

another needless set of hoops for people in Ontario to jump through. Many Ontario communities, including Toronto, Ottawa, as the member from Ottawa Centre would know, London, Waterloo and Caledon,

are considering the issue of the use of herbicide, insecticide and other pesticides and are taking action. Really, those municipalities don't need a piece of legislation to tell them what they

already know and what they're already considering doing or are doing.

Ontario municipalities are acting in the best interests of their people and their communities. They're doing so without relying on an amendment to the

Municipal Act. I commend them for their hard work to this point and I'm loath to support a bill that essentially would pull the rug from under their feet. I question this call for a prohibition on

the use of pesticides. I support a science-based approach. I will make mention of

section 2(2), and I quote, "A municipality may prohibit the spreading or use of pesticides on a precautionary basis

regardless of whether the scientific evidence is conclusive or not." I question that. I feel there is a role for science. I feel there is a strong role for education and information in dealing with

this issue. I have a farm. I use herbicides to grow food. I also have a lawn. I have never used chemicals on my lawn. I don't water my lawn. I have priorities. I have this approach because of

brochures and information and educational programs that I have picked up over the years.

I mentioned that much work has already been done by municipalities. For example, Toronto released this report on its strategy to reduce the use of outdoor

pesticides just this past November. Since then, the board of health has directed the city's medical officer of health to develop a pesticide bylaw for their consideration. What value would this

bill have for the city of Toronto under our existing legislation? Toronto is already developing what I consider an effective strategy. It works for Toronto and protects the environment and human

health at the same time.

It was the same story in Ottawa earlier this year. The city of Ottawa, as the member for Ottawa Centre will know, released its report on pesticide reduction

strategies for private properties. The city will establish pesticide reduction targets in early 2003 and will, again, consider the need for a bylaw within three years if these targets are not met.

The city of Ottawa does not require an amendment to Ontario's existing legislation to establish these reduction targets.

Many other communities -- Mississauga, Hamilton -- joined with park associations to develop a consistent municipal approach with respect to the issue of

pesticide management. Really, why should we commend, tap them on the shoulder, tell them, "Thanks for the effort, but we feel we know better what's right" for their communities?

The new Municipal Act comes into effect January 1. It's a significant, far-reaching deal, a new deal, for our municipalities. The new Municipal Act was

reviewed through countless consultations with municipal leaders. But now, before it can even come into effect, we're proposing, today, to amend it. Community leaders must be wondering why we would

go down this road. Our cities and towns aren't asking for amendments to

an act that they, along with us, fought long and hard to create.

Again, in my view, prohibition is not the road to take. Education, information and persuasion I feel can be a much more fruitful approach to this issue.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I can't understand what's happening here this morning. All this bill does is to clarify the

section in the proposed Municipal Act that's going to take effect on January 1 to make sure that municipalities have the ability to pass bylaws. Let me just read the

section that we're talking

about. It clearly states that "a municipality may prohibit the spreading or use of pesticides" in non-essential situations if the prohibition is related to "health, safety and well-being of the

inhabitants of the municipality." It is just to make sure that

section 120 of the new act includes the provision that it could pass bylaws in this area as well -- not that it will, but that it

could.

I'm still of the belief that the local municipal politicians who deal with the down-to-earth, day-to-day problems in municipalities, who are just as

legitimately elected as we are at this level, have a much better handle on individual situations when they deal with issues like this than we have at the provincial level or at the federal

level.

I noticed that the last member who spoke, and he quoted section (2) of the amendment, didn't quote the entire section. Again, the

section states: "A

municipality may prohibit the spreading or use of pesticides on a precautionary basis regardless of whether the scientific evidence is conclusive or not," but he didn't continue on and quote the

last section; "if the municipality is of the opinion that there's a threat to the health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality."

All this

section is doing is taking the ambiguity out of the whole new

section 120 of the Municipal Act and allowing municipalities if, in their wisdom, after

the due consultation that municipal councils usually get involved in, they feel they want to pass bylaws dealing with the prohibition of pesticides.

I firmly believe that many, many areas are much better dealt with at the local level than at the provincial or the federal level, because I don't think the way

we sometimes get involved in passing laws, etc, has the grassroots effect or the grassroots issues that can be addressed at the local level. The evidence is surely clear, from all the various

medical reports and medical studies that have been done, that the long-term use of pesticides creates reproductive effects in newborns, neurological effects in individuals, and all sorts of

problems that can be related to the long-term use of pesticides. If a municipal council feels it is in the best interests of their citizens to do something about it, they should have the right to

do something about it by banning the use of pesticides. Obviously, this has to be done on an individual basis and a case-by-case basis, the way the leaders of that municipality see the issue from

time to time.

Some of the other gobbledegook I've heard here this morning about, "Well, this will have to be tested in the courts, and then we can have some adjudication of

it" -- what this proposed amendment is trying to do is take it out of the area of ambiguity so there will not be any challenges in court. Surely to goodness there are enough members on all sides of

the House who agree with the member from Ottawa Centre, who has proposed this private member's bill, that it is the local people in the local municipalities who can best adjudicate this. Again, it

is simply giving them the right to do so. It doesn't mean that every municipality is going to do this; it's simply giving them the right to do something they probably should have had the power to

do for a long period of time. That's what this is about, and I urge all members to support this bill.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I want to thank our member from Ottawa Centre, Richard Patten, for having the dedication to bring this

forward. I think that sometimes a verification of the reason we're here as lawmakers is to propose good laws. This is a good piece of legislation, a good amendment that makes eminent sense, because

it affects people in a real way in terms of their health and the health of their children and families. I want to thank councillor Bill Armstrong, who came here all the way from London, who is also

typical of a lot of councillors throughout Ontario who want to do something that benefits their constituents.

In many ways, this is really a no-brainer. Who, except the one member from across the way, stands up and defends the use of pesticides? In an urban setting, it

has to be controlled, because properties are so adjacent to each other. Even if you don't use pesticides on your lawn, your next-door neighbour on either side or your neighbours in behind you could

be using pesticides, because the lots are so small. That's why you need a municipal government that can enact protective laws so you don't have the free and unlimited use of pesticides.

In Ontario right now, as you know, you can walk into any Home Depot or Home Hardware and get all the chemicals, all the pesticides, you want; there's no limit

on it. So if you've got some hare-brained neighbour next door who wants to make his lawn the greenest lawn this side of Ireland, he'll do it with every pesticide he can buy at a discount price at

the local hardware store. That's why you have to have some power in the hands of municipalities to control that type of use -- and it's rampant. All over this province there are people, especially

in cities, who spend all their time pouring chemicals on to their front lawns or back lawns. That chemical, that pesticide, goes beyond that person's property. It goes into water tables, it goes

into aquifers. It runs into the storm sewer runoffs and goes into our water supply, into the lakes and rivers that supply us with water. We drink the pesticides because there are some irresponsible

people or people who don't understand the impact of that pesticide use. So we have to have some protections for citizens on this unlimited use.

That's why municipalities are saying very clearly, "There's ambiguity out there right now. We want to know what our rights are and that we won't be spending

hundreds of thousands of dollars in court trying to defend our right to protect our citizens." That's what is hampering municipalities right now, and this government's got to do something about it.

They've got to enable municipalities to be immune from these multi million-dollar court cases that they are going to be confronted with if they confront the DuPont Chemicals of this world.

The member for Ottawa Centre is listening to people all across this province who want the government of Ontario to give municipalities the power -- if the

provincial government won't do it, they're saying, "Let the municipalities protect us from this rampant use of cosmetic pesticides especially." You can understand in some cases where you've got a

need to control some kind of outbreak of mosquito, West Nile virus, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the cosmetic use of pesticides on properties in every city across this

province, and in essence there are no controls on doing that.

Sadly, sometimes the parents don't understand the impact they are having on their children and on themselves, and that these pesticides they use are permanent.

They are permanently in the lawn; they are permanently dragged into the house on your feet, on to your carpets; they are in our drinking water. Who in his right mind would not want some kind of

protection? It's a little bit of protection that the member for Ottawa Centre is asking for, and I think we, as lawmakers, have a duty to listen to this call for some kind of action on our part.

It's a little step we can use to ensure that municipalities will be able to do their job, to stop this rampant use of cosmetic pesticides all across this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has two minutes.

Mr Patten: Thank you very much to everyone participating in this debate today. I appreciate the points that were made.

I would like to address one, if I may, to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, who said this is going to increase red tape. The point is, it does the exact

opposite, in clarifying the position. This isn't taken lightly. I didn't just think about this sitting in my office and say, "You know, I think I'm going to do this." I sought legal advice. I

talked to the people in the pesticide control area, or my staff did, rather. Do you know what the managers in the pesticides section, standards development branch, of the Ministry of the

Environment said? They indicated that currently the Ontario Pesticides Act and Municipal Act don't explicitly provide for a municipal role in regulating pesticides. So the confusion is there.

This is to enable municipalities that want to take action and reduce legal costs, so it in effect would reduce red tape for a lot of municipalities. A number

of municipalities have said to me that they have been deterred by the worry over the legal costs from pursuing something that they think is important for the health of the constituents in their

particular town or city.

So I would urge the members -- Mr Armstrong from London city council is here today. London city council just voted 18 to 1 in favour of supporting this

particular bill because they believe this will help them have a very clear backdrop on which they would be able to proceed if they choose to regulate, mitigate, or in any way try to reduce some of

the toxicity in their municipality that has grave health effects for a lot of people.

I want to thank the members who spoke very articulately and added to the debate today.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' business has expired.

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 73, standing in the name of Mr Prue.

Mr Prue has moved second reading of Bill 215,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

We'll stand that down and deal with the second item of business.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 74, standing in the name of Mr Patten.

Mr Patten has moved second reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

RENT FREEZE

AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL

ET LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We are dealing with ballot item 73. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bisson, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 8; the nays are 70.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

The doors will be open for 30 seconds for entrance or egress.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(PROHIBITING THE USE

OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (INTERDICTION

D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal now with ballot item number 74. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing

until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Gerretsen, John

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hastings, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Coburn, Brian

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 12.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be referred to a standing committee?

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Could I seek unanimous consent to refer this to the standing committee on justice and social policy?

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy? I hear some dissent.

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

The majority of the House being in favour, this bill stands referred to the justice committee.

The business of this morning being ended, this House stands adjourned until 1:30.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 11/17

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I think it's fair to say that the expenses released earlier this week for former northern

development minister Tim Hudak detailing trips to China, Korea, Rio de Janeiro and Las Vegas all in the same year bring into question the priorities of the then minister for the north. Certainly,

it's clear from the perspective of a member from northwestern Ontario that much-needed highway improvements were not part of the discussions in those exotic locales.

All of this seems somehow more galling when one notes the tap dance recently exhibited by senior Ministry of Transportation officials related to the need for

four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway between Thunder Bay and Nipigon. First we are told that traffic volumes do not justify the four-laning, but then we are told that traffic volumes are not the

only factor in the decision to four-lane. In fact, the regional director for the ministry told Thunder Bay television yesterday that a stretch of highway east of Sault Ste Marie that is being

four-laned is being done to address safety concerns unique to that area. So in other words, mitigating factors can override the volume issue.

If I may, let me suggest some vital mitigating factors relating to the stretch of Highway 11/17 between Thunder Bay and Nipigon. One, there is no alternate

route available to drivers. Close the highway here and the Trans-Canada is shut down. Two, the

section between Thunder Bay and Pass Lake frequently exceeds the volumes required by the ministry,

certainly during the summer months. Why not move to at least four-lane that

section of the highway? Thirdly, the province 12 years ago determined that four-laning that stretch between Thunder Bay

and Nipigon should go forward.

There are more large transports on the highways. That's got to be a consideration. This is a project that is more than justified and, in fact, a vital

necessity to ensure the safety of northern drivers. We will not give up until we see it become a reality.

ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI SCHOOL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I would first like to take time to acknowledge the grade 5 class, the students and their teacher, Donna Paquette,

who are sitting in the public gallery today. They hail from St Joseph's French Immersion Centre in Bowmanville and are here to observe the political process in action.

I also rise in the House to congratulate St Francis of Assisi Catholic Elementary School on the official opening and blessing of this new school in the village

of Newcastle. I had the opportunity to attend the school's official opening on October 4, 2002, a wonderful program of music and greetings celebrating the event, with Barb Malone, trustee, as the

emcee. The entertainment was provided by the St Francis student and staff choirs and the St Francis recorder club and the St Stephen's Secondary School concert band. The celebration honoured those

persons whose strength and commitment have been critical to the development of this new school site.

The new structure, which has a capacity of 558 students, has 19 regular classrooms, a library resource centre, a health room, a special education room, three

kindergarten classes, a new resource room, a wonderful gymnasium and an administrative centre. This new school will be under the administrative guidance of Violet Neheli as principal and Katherine

Derhak as vice-principal.

I'm very excited to announce the completion of the new St Francis of Assisi school in Durham riding. I'm confident this new building will be a centre for

children and their educational achievements and a focal point of the Newcastle community.

I'd ask the members to recognize the grade 5 class with Donna Paquette here today.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Intense lobbying by Perth-based OMYA Canada Inc appears to have left the company poised to increase its

industrial water consumption by 500% and to eclipse the limits set by a recent environmental tribunal. If it gets the green light from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Minister Chris

Stockwell, OMYA will soon be allowed to pump 4,500 cubic metres of water a day from the Tay River. The proposed intake amount is equal to that used by all 6,000 residents, businesses and civic

facilities in Perth.

Today Lanark county citizens called on the Ontario Minister of the Environment to uphold the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry report when he makes his

decision on a controversial water-taking appeal involving the Tay River near Perth. After a two-year struggle in February 2002, permanent and seasonal residents in the Tay River watershed won an

Environmental Review Tribunal decision to restrict the volume of water-taking from the Tay River by the company. The tribunal decision restricted the company to taking 1.5 million litres of water a

day from the Tay River, one third of the original volume sought by the company. OMYA appealed this decision to the Minister of the Environment, Chris Stockwell, asking him to triple the

water-taking to 4.5 million litres per day.

The Tay River Defence appellants were shocked to learn in late November that the Ministry of the Environment, which had initially agreed to the tribunal's

decision to restrict the water-taking, had reversed its position and is urging Minister Stockwell to accept the company demands.

It sounds like political pressure to me, and that political pressure should be resisted.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It is my pleasure to announce that today is International Volunteer Day. This day, designated by the

United Nations in 1985, is an excellent opportunity for each of us to publicly celebrate the contribution that volunteers make to the strength of this province. In Ontario more than 2.3 million

men, women and youth volunteer time equivalent to 205,000 full-time jobs. That time, given freely for community service, has been estimated at a value of more than $6 billion annually.

Our government recognizes and celebrates the contributions of our volunteers. Since 1995, our government has invested more than $37 million to support

volunteerism, including the International Year of Volunteers celebrations last year. Our government, through the Ministry of Citizenship, supports volunteer initiatives such as Volunteer @ction

On-line, the Ontario Screening Initiative, Ontario Voluntary Forum, Making IT Work for Volunteers, and Good Neighbours.

This year, more than 7,000 volunteers were honoured with volunteer service awards and outstanding achievement awards at 28 local ceremonies, including a

ceremony held recently in Parry Sound that I was able to attend.

Mr Speaker and honourable members, please take time today to recognize the immense contributions that volunteers can make.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to speak about an important issue that has sparked intense debate within and outside this

House, Bill 30. Some unknown facts that do not seem to get out there are that the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association offered a proposal to the Minister of Public Safety and Security to

hold an independent task force to resolve the double-hatter issue by engaging all the stakeholders in this process. To date this offer has been turned down by the government.

In committee, my own amendment was turned down that asked for the very same thing to happen: that negotiations take place before any type of bill is rammed

down their throats. Quite frankly, the fire marshal indicated that he only had one meeting with the stakeholders and decided that the negotiations were over. I think it's important for us to make

that understood.

Secondly, the OPFFA would reinstate a moratorium on charges against double-hatters if the government would take time to have this task force struck. It seems

to me that this resolves the problem in a conciliatory way between all those involved and does not create the chaos that is now happening. I'm consistently perplexed by the way this government

continues to alienate entire groups with poorly written and poorly implemented legislation. The OPFFA has made a commitment to work together with all stakeholders to find an equitable solution to

all the things that are involved in this issue. I would urge each member of this House not to vote for Bill 30 and to allow these groups to find that task force, to find that negotiation and to

come to an equitable solution to this problem.

WATER EXTRACTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): A multi-national corporation, OMYA, applied to have their water-taking increase from 1.5 million litres

per day to a whopping 4.5 million litres per day. The ministry issued an order to allow the expanded water-taking, but the citizens who live near the Tay River, some of whom are here today, were

concerned that this amount of water taken from the river would threaten its viability, so they appealed the decision to the Environmental Review Tribunal. The tribunal, on recommendation from the

minister's staff, agreed with the citizens that they should not be allowed to take that amount of water per day. The tribunal ordered that the company's water-taking be restricted to 1.5 million

litres per day. It also laid out conditions that it should have an independent auditor make sure the water-taking didn't exceed the permit. But OMYA wanted more and they've appealed to both the

minister and the courts to overturn the decision and give them the water they asked for. The CEO of OMYA wrote a threatening letter to the government saying that if it didn't give in to their

demands, they might have to reassess their "investment and production plans" in Ontario.

The Environmental Review Tribunal stated that before there was an increase in water taken from the Tay, there should be a water budget done so the impact could

be assessed. That has not been done. Justice O'Connor recommended the same thing. This government has not done anything on source protection. I appeal to the minister to not give in to the

corporation's demand here and to do the right thing.

SISTERS OF THE ASSUMPTION

OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I rise before the House to talk about a recent event that I attended in my riding of Nipissing.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to celebrate the good work that the Sisters of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin have done over the years. This event was

held at the École Publique Héritage. Once a year, the school recognizes