Ontario Municipal Amendment Act (Prohibiting Use Of Pesticides)

        Subject:     Ontario Municipal Amendment Act (Prohibiting Use Of Pesticides)
            Date:    Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:05:44 -0500
           From:     Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (PROHIBITING USE OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉÉS (INTERDICTION D'UTILISER DES PESTICIDES)

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 municipalitéés pour permettre aux municipalitéés d'interdire des activitéés ou l'utilisation de substances afin de protééger la santéé, la séécuritéé et le bien-êêtre des habitants de la municipalitéé.

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 exposéé.

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.

"Children are not simply small adults. They are more vulnerable to environmental threats because of their unique physiologicaldevelopmental 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.

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 as 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.

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 federallevel.

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 cityacross 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.

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.

RENT FREEZE AND RENT CONTROL ACT, 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 SUR LE GEL ET LE CONTRÔÔLE 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (PROHIBITING USE OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉÉS(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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (PROHIBITING THE USE OF PESTICIDES), 2002 /
LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉÉS (INTERDICTION
'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.

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.

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

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.

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.

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.

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