Requests
for a Pesticide Bylaw
Open Letters
Note: Since
these 2 letters were written, both Maria and Rick
failed to vote for a strong pesticide bylaw on
Nov. 9, 2005. See Action Alert.
1) To Maria McRae
2) To Rick Chiarelli
Open letter to Councillor Maria
McRae
From: Mark MacKenzie
Sent via email on Nov. 7 2005 to all council members
Dear Maria,
As you know, I am a resident of
your River Ward but you may not know that I have been
involved in the pesticide debate in this region for
15 years. I was there 3 years ago when I saw council
and staff, many very reluctantly, bow to industry
pressure. This current bylaw unnecessarily puts a
further delay on something that was promised to the
public 3 years ago. The health community was not so
united in purpose on this issue three years ago as it
is today and their highly credible message is having
a powerful effect on the community.
Having sat through last council meeting, I wondered
whether or not the quickest way for a strong bylaw in
Ottawa to protect the children as our health
officials have pleaded for to be implemented, might
be for this current bill to be defeated.
Political careers, and particularly local ones, are
often made or broken on one issue since the voter
turnout is usually low and inspiration is needed to
rally support for a particular candidate. If this
bylaw, as written, is turned down, this next election
will see the usual safety of incumbent seats in the
urban area of the city take on a new look.
There are thousands of votes across this city where
households are having pesticides sprayed on their
property against their will. I have been at many a
contentious condo board meeting where young couples
with kids, many of them tenants, are voted down by
empty nesters and their landlords, who don't live
there but want the weeds killed. The net result is
spray companies are hired and many of the residents
of the condo are quite angry about it. Their votes
will likely count more in a municipal election more
than at their own condo association so these votes
can be easily rallied.
Survey after survey in this province and this city
suggest that the vast majority of citizens, usually
around 70% want a bylaw. I can't see why you keep
saying that your ward is different. Dianne Deans
questioned why 54% would still be using pesticides.
The answer is simply that there are a lot of people,
it looks like about 24% if you do the math, are using
pesticides but would support a bylaw. They are too
busy to change their ways right now but would readily
accept the change once it was implemented. I have
spoken to many of these types of people over the last
15 years. They are placated with false impressions
that pesticides are only spot sprayed, by member
companies of the "Ottawa Environmental
Alliance", a group of pesticide using companies
that have your direct ear. If you would like some
proof as to how soft that 54% is, particularly in the
urban environment, just look at some of the numbers
that are being thrown around by Thom Bourne.
Apparently his "Environmental Alliance"
claims to have customer lists in the tens of
thousands, all using pesticides, yet he was only able
to muster a fraction of that for signatures after
extensive mailing campaigns.
I too, and others, have customer lists in the 1000's
that can be rallied through parental grapevines to
make next August "Organic Lawn Care month."
They have never received a piece of mail from me
asking for their support in the municipal debate, but
we can certainly start if this bylaw is defeated. The
signs you have seen pop up around your neighbourhood
are only a sampling of what can be organized
throughout the summer for a fall campaign, a time
when I should remind you that just about all lawns,
even the ones that didn' t have much of anything done
to them throughout the summer, look great. Certainly
one of the reasons that the 'This is a beautiful
lawn' campaign didn't have the desired effect is
because people who did nothing for their lawn put out
signs in the heart of weed season. City staff who
spearheaded this campaign were operating with one
hand tied behind their back. The very posters used by
the city in its campaign to encourage the public to
'use alternatives' are virtually indistinguishable
from Nutrilawn's and other pesticide promoting
companies' same picture of a dog and a girl on a
lawn. If you want an education campaign to succeed,
put a ban in place, then you will have the public's
attention.
Many of the public who are supporters of a ban are
not on our customer list, or that of other 100%
organic lawn care firms, since they are 'anti-lawn'
and don't hire anybody to do anything but they can be
easily found and rallied before next fall's election.
The Toronto bylaw was boosted by apartment and condo
dwellers, who are still voters. Families with kids in
these dwellings can also be likely persuaded to get
out next election after they are convinced that CHEO
needs their support at the voting booth. Indeed, the
very community center where many of your residents
will be casting their ballots is surrounded by many
apartment and townhouse dwellers.
I have been involved in these debates in other cities
and clearly this will be an embarrassment to this
city for years to come. Our position as a national
and international municipal leader will be clearly
downgraded when all of the major cities in our
country are headed in the direction of pesticide bans
for cosmetic purposes. If what Mayor Chiarelli says
is true about what will happen if this is turned
down, it looks like this will be an election issue
for this and the next term.
The OMAF 'B' guidelines were
debated around city council's last meeting as an
attempt to 'compromise'. Unfortunately, counting
percentage of weeds is not a clear science. It is not
like counting grubs per square metre, which, I
believe, could be substantiated by a bylaw officer,
whereas percentage of weed cover could not. I urged
council through my submission to HRSS to not allow
any more loopholes in a bylaw that also unnecessarily
stretches this out and gives rural concessions,
because the chemical companies would drive their
biggest spray trucks right through the middle of
them. Any percentage weed cover below, say 50%, will
be regularly abused.
Interestingly, a full herbicide ban now exists in
Toronto as of September 1st of this year. I have
heard reports that many companies are still spraying
in violation of the bylaw and essentially daring the
city to fine them, or catch them, if you will. I have
not had time to substantiate this but perhaps city
staff could find the time this week before
Wednesday's vote to get some feedback on how
trustworthy and self-policing chemical spray
companies seem to be, or not to be. And, by the way,
these spray companies also called themselves the
"Toronto Environmental Alliance." In my
opinion, it was being this bold that swung the
undecided votes in favour of a bylaw. When I typed in
the subject at the top of this letter, I wondered how
many councilors probably thought that I was with Thom
Bourne's group? 'Organic Alliance', 'Environmental
Alliance' - what's the difference?
Maria, you have been a tireless worker for this ward
but you are backing the wrong horse on this one. I
urge you to work with other councilors who voted no
to back this already watered down bylaw and change
your vote. Let's get this off the plate once and for
all, and onto other important issues of city
management and other aspects of our quality of life
in this great city.
Mark MacKenzie President Organic Landscape Alliance
www.organiclandscape.org
The contents of this email is
not confidential.
Open Letter to Rick Chiarelli
Dear Rick;
Before questioning the role of municipalities in
terms of regulating pesticide use on private property
you may be interesting in reading the PMRA factsheet
below titled: "Roles of the Three Levels of
Governments" as well as former Minister of
Health, Hon. Anne McLellan, comments on this specific
issue.
Ottawa City Council must recognize and correct the
flaws in the watering down a pesticide by-law due to
consensus-based decision making. Proposing comprise
clauses (i.e. weed infestations) may please those in
the 'spray and pay' business but they will do little
to protect public health from unwanted exposure to
lawn pesticides.
One key point overlooked is the failure of
councillors and pesticide proponents to demonstrate a
net health benefit from spraying these synthetic
toxins on lawns simply for aesthetic purposes.
According to CHEO, and numerous other medical and
scientific experts there is none. So why do you and
nine other councillors choose to ignore these
experts, choose to ignore the promise made in 2002,
choose to ignore Ottawa's 20/20 Plan, choose to
ignore Ottawa's previous commitment to the
precautionary principle with environmental concerns
but choose to bend over backwards to accommodate the
pro-pesticide interests and the continued spraying of
these unwanted toxins. How do you explain this
rationale to our children and our pets? What is
behind your motivation to support the dark side and
employ phony tactics to create a mirage of false
support for your questionable belief?
Margaret Thatcher once described consensus as
"the process of abandoning all beliefs,
principles, values and policies in search of
something in which no one believes, but to which no
one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues
that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get
agreement on the way ahead. Consensus is the negation
of leadership".
On Wednesday, November 9th, I'm
urging you to support a strong by-law, leave the
dark-side behind and join the ten articulate and
informed members of city council who have said
"Yes", put their stake in the ground and
demonstrated that they have a backbone and that they
keep promises. I am hoping you have a backbone too,
so stand up for our kids and make everyone proud of
Ottawa City Council. All of Canada have their eyes on
you and the nine other "No" councillors.
You can be a hero for our kids. Do you have it in
you? I truly hope so.
Mike Christie
Attachments:
Roles of the Three
Levels of Governments Regarding Pesticides in Canada
January 11, 2005
Federal Responsibilities
Provincial Responsibilities
Municipal Responsibilities
The use of pesticides on lawns
and gardens is being debated in municipalities across
Canada. Some municipalities have enacted restrictions
on pesticide use on public and private property,
while others are exploring the possibilities of doing
so. Consequently, questions have risen concerning
pesticide regulation and the roles of the federal,
provincial and municipal governments in Canada.
Federal Responsibilities
Pesticides must be registered
before they can be imported, manufactured, sold or
used in Canada. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA) is responsible for administering the Pest
Control Products Act (PCPA) on behalf of the Minister
of Health.
Registration under the PCPA
requires a thorough scientific evaluation to
determine that new pesticides are acceptable for a
specific use and that registered pesticides remain
acceptable for use once on the market.
If Canadians choose to use pesticides, they can only
use a pesticide registered by the federal government
for the pests and treatment areas listed on the
label, and use them according to the label
directions.
The federal jurisdiction in pesticide regulation
rests mainly on the federal parliament's criminal law
power. The PCPA requires the federal government to
determine that Canadians' health, safety and
environment are protected. To do so, the federal
government must use a science-based approach to
determine that the pesticide does not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment
as well as that the product demonstrates value to the
user.
Provincial Responsibilities
Provinces and territories rely
on non-criminal legislative authority instead of
criminal law power. Their decisions can consider
public concerns and general welfare, which may
include scientific proof. The provinces and
territories are able to enact regulations to restrict
or prohibit the use of products that are registered
under the PCPA in their jurisdictions.
These regulations can be more restrictive than the
PCPA or other federal regulations, but not less
restrictive than any federal requirement. For
example, provinces and territories may be involved
the following:
* require pesticide use permits and impose additional
use restrictions;
* regulate the transportation, sale, use, storage and
disposal of pesticides;
* regulate the training, certification and licensing
of pesticide applicators and vendors; and
* respond to spills or accidents.
Municipal Responsibilities
Provincial and territorial
governments may also allow cities, towns and
municipalities to enact bylaws to set further
regulations, including use restrictions, on pesticide
use based on local considerations.
Source: http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/highlights/in20050111-e.html
Why Should
Municipalities Act?
The first rule physicians learn is Primum non nocere:
First, do no harm. Concerned citizens expect
governments to provide this basic protection for our
health, and our ecosystems too. Citizens also depend
upon respect for the precautionary principle and a
reasonable demonstration of safety, buttressed by the
principle of reverse onus on those selling or using
these noxious lawn chemicals. The application of
chemical pesticides for aesthetic purposes meets none
of these principles.
When considering pesticide use regulations within
urban areas, municipalities are closest to the people
and in the best position to protect the public
interest from these unwanted toxins.
This view is supported by the
Minister of Health, Hon. Anne McLellan, who stated in
the House of Commons, on April 8, 2002, that:
"Municipalities may place whatever restrictions
they wish on the use of pesticides on lands which
they own. In addition, where duly authorized by
provincial legislation, a municipality may establish
bylaws to restrict or ban the use of pesticides on
private land within its jurisdiction."
The Minister went on to state that: "At the same
time, citizens of a particular municipality may
decide they do not want to have the pesticide used in
their community no matter how small the risks. They
may convince the municipal authorities to establish a
bylaw banning all pesticides for a specific
use."
On December 8, 2003, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice issued a ruling concerning the City of
Toronto's pesticide by-law stating that it is valid
in accordance with section 130 of the Municipal Act
of 2001. Section 130 of the Municipal Act provides:
"A municipality may regulate matters not
specifically provided for by this Act or any other
Act for purposes related to the health, safety and
well-being of the inhabitants of the
municipality."
Why Is It Necessary To Act Now?
In section 12.8 of the Federal Standing Committee on
the Environment and Sustainable Development Report
titled "Pesticides: Making the Right
Choice" tabled in the House of Commons on May
16, 2000 it states that: "The Committee firmly
believes that a moratorium on pesticide use for
esthetic purposes is necessary until science has
proven that the pesticides involved do not constitute
a health and some light has been shed on the
consequences of their use in urban areas."
Except for the Province of Québec, federal and
provincial inaction on the cosmetic pesticide issue
requires that municipal governments assume the
responsibility for protecting the health of
communities. David Boyd states in his recent book
titled Unnatural Law that: "In general,
provincial pesticide laws and regulations provide
little additional protection for the health and the
environment beyond what is already provided by
federal legislation and labeling requirements".
Fortunately, a growing number of municipalities
across Canada are embracing the precautionary
principle and adopting comprehensive pesticide
by-laws designed to eliminate the unnecessary use of
synthetic pesticides in our communities.
On March 5, 2003, the Province of Québec adopted the
highest standards in North America to decrease
exposure to pesticides. In the press release, Mr.
André Boisclair, former Minister of State for
Municipal Affairs, Greater Montréal, Environment and
Water stated that: "Due to the continuing
uncertainty about their harmfulness, herbicides made
up of active ingredients 2,4-D, MCPA and mecoprop
will continue to be prohibited for precautionary
reasons until the availability of the products'
revaluation results by recognized
organizations."
The Londoner Online
City within rights to ban pesticides
Chris Krepski, a spokesperson
for Health Canada, knows full well how much research
is done into making sure the products used by the
public are safe and meet federal government
guidelines.
What individual municipalities do with that
information, Mr. Krepski says, is not of concern to
the federal government.
"Pesticides are a shared responsibility,
federally, provincially, municipally. When it comes
to their use, we believe it's a local decision.
Municipalities are fully in their right to determine
whether they want them used," Mr. Krepski says.
"We only determine whether the product is safe
when used properly. A municipality can't allow
something we didn't find as safe, but they can place
a restraint on the use of a product should they so
choose."
Mr. Krepski says Health Canada thoroughly
investigates the effects of any pesticide on a wide
variety of subjects, including affects on the
environment, plants, animals, fish and insects. They
investigate how a given pesticide interacts with the
environment, the effects it might have with
groundwater and what level of exposure causes what
results.
He also said Health Canada determines just how the
various products should be safely handled and what
equipment needs to be used with them (e.g.: gloves,
respirator).
To date, several communities across Canada, such as
Halifax, Toronto and Hudson, Que., have enacted
bylaws that call for restriction of products Health
Canada has found to be safe. And while the Toronto
bylaw has successfully faced legal challenge, there
is currently an appeal of that decision before the
Ontario court.
Source: http://www.thelondoner.ca/news/index3_10.htm
Ward 8: Councillor Rick
Chiarelli, Baseline Support For a Pesticide By-law:
On May 6, 2005, the Ottawa Citizen reported that
Councillor Rick Chiarelli said the committee's
credibility would be jeopardized if it changed the
bylaw-drafting deadline at the last minute. "You
can certainly short-circuit it but it will come to
council with that label," said Chiarelli.
"We have to follow the process."
On July 3, 2004, the Ottawa Citizen reported that
Councillor Rick Chiarelli "doesn't use
pesticides on his 'little patch' of lawn. His
dandelion problem was solved when his kids presented
him with a bouquet of the little yellow
flowers."
On March 14, 2004, Councillor Chiarelli appeared on
CFRA's Bev McRae 'City Politics' show and a caller
asked "Do you feel that our sportsfields should
be sprayed with pesticides?",Councillor
Chiarelli replied "No I don't...you don't need
to use pesticides."
On December 18, 2002, at City Council Councillor Rick
Chiarelli voted in support of the following motion:
AND WHEREAS the public has clearly indicated its
support for such a by-law; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT, if the following targets for reduction in
cosmetic pesticide use have not been met by the end
of September 2005:
* 70% reduction on residential properties;
* 100% reduction on all school, daycare, homes for
the aged and hospital properties; and
* 65% reduction on all remaining non-residential
uses, That staff be directed to prepare a by-law to
be adopted by the end of 2005; and that such a by-law
would incorporate the following principles:
Applicable to all private, industrial, commercial and
institutional property within the boundaries of the
City of Ottawa; On November 16, 2002, the Ottawa Sun
stated that "although Chiarelli said he will see
where public support stands, he said a ban should be
the last resort."
On September 26, 2002, in a meeting from 5:40pm to
7:45pm with constituents at Ben Franklin Place place
Councillor Chiarelli stated that he personally
supports a by-law but not right away. He does not
support a feeble by-law and feels the fines should be
stiff. He is concerned that if city council passes a
bylaw in December 2002, the next city council
(elected in Fall 2003) will overturn it by January
2004. Don't do anything that will damage a future
by-law
(i. e.: don't try to get one now, wait until a new
city council is elected. The timing is wrong. He is
worried that a pesticide ban would be one "one
ban too many" (i.e. smoke-free, pesticides,
circuses with live animals) and that it will be
perceived "as too much interference on private
property when there is no reason"
* ** 2nd time *** On January 17, 2002, in a meeting
with constituents at his Ben Franklin Place office
Councillor Chiarelli stated that when the time is
right he would be favorable to implementing a by-law
that would restrict cosmetic pesticide usage on
private property provided that it is backed-up with
the right type of "messaging" during the
lead-in process.
On July 19, 2000, CBC Radio Ottawa quoted Nepean city
councillor Rick Chiarelli stating that the provincial
government has jurisdiction over pesticide spraying
on private property. But they're not doing anything
about it. "Well either they should role up their
sleeves and step up and do something or get out of
it," he says.
In 1991, Who's Green? Councillors Elizabeth Arnold,
Rick Chiarelli, Alex Cullen, Diane Holmes, Alex
Munter and Jim Watson committed to actively support a
phase-out proposal on the use of toxic pesticides and
herbicides on both municipal and private lands by the
year 1995.
http://perc.ca/PEN/1991-11/whosgreen.html
Community Web.
