This document provides a summary of a report prepared for the City of Hamilton on pesticide use on private property. It examines the health concerns related to pesticide use, the legal context, and various policy options for municipal regulation. Key points include:
- There is scientific uncertainty around pesticides' chronic health impacts but evidence they may cause issues like cancer, especially in children.
- Several public health organizations recommend limiting non-essential pesticide use based on precautionary principle given potential harms.
- Canadian court ruled municipalities can regulate private pesticide use under "general welfare" powers, as in Quebec. Applicability in Ontario needs review.
- Report discusses policy options like education, industry standards, notification by
1. Pesticide Use on Private Property:
Consultation Framework
& Policy Options
Prepared for:
Social & Public Health Services Department
City of Hamilton
By: Kim Perrotta
Environmental Health Consultant
April 2002
2. 2
I. Executive Summary
In October 2001, City Council requested that the Medical Officer of Health, in
collaboration with key stakeholders, prepare a report that proposes a framework with
which to explore the issues of municipal regulation of pesticide use on private lands in
the City of Hamilton. This request stems from both the City’s development of a formal
pesticide reduction strategy for City-owned property over the last year, and the decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada in June 2001 to uphold the pesticide by-law
implemented by the Town of Hudson in Quebec.
While scientific uncertainty surrounds the chronic health impacts associated with
particular pesticide products, there is a body of evidence that suggests that serious
health effects such as childhood cancer may be associated with the use of pesticides.
A number of individuals, public health organizations, and federal Members of Parliament
(MPs) have applied the precautionary principle to pesticides and recommended a
prohibition on their cosmetic use on lawns and gardens.
Pesticide regulations are administered by the federal and provincial governments.
However, in June 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Town of Hudson
had the legitimate power to regulate pesticide use under the “general welfare”
provisions contained in the Quebec Cities and Towns Act. The “general welfare”
provisions contained in Quebec law are very similar to those provided by section 102 of
the existing Ontario Municipal Act and to those provided by section 130 of Bill 111, an
Act to Revise the Municipal Act. This has led some to believe that municipalities in
Ontario would have the same right to regulate pesticide use on private property as
municipalities in Quebec do. However, an Ontario-specific legal analysis, whether in-
house or external, is not included in this preliminary report.
A number of municipalities in Quebec and the Halifax Regional Municipality now have
by-laws regulating the use of pesticides. Some of these by-laws impose widespread
prohibitions on the use of pesticides on green space while others establish rules
respecting signs, notification procedures and buffer zones. A number of municipalities
in Ontario are currently examining the cosmetic use of pesticides on public and private
property. Several of these municipalities were contacted to determine the policy options
being considered and the consultation processes being used, and those findings are
summarized in this report.
Several policy options are discussed including: education and social marketing;
encouragement of industry self-regulation through voluntary Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) accreditation; a by-law that sets clear rules about signage and
notification; a by-law that requires IPM accreditation of all companies applying
pesticides on private property; a by-law that mandates a specified buffer zone around
the properties of schools, daycares, hospitals, nursing homes and sensitive individuals;
and a by-law that mandates a widespread prohibition on private green space.
3. 3
Several aspects of the consultation framework are discussed with a variety of
options considered for each aspect. Social and Public Health Services
Department staff are recommending that a pesticides advisory committee with
City Councillors and balanced representation by the landscape industry and
environmental/ community organizations be established to examine the policy
options and develop a strategy for Hamilton. Staff have also identified a
number of policy options, some regulatory and some non-regulatory, to be
considered separately or in combination, by the pesticides advisory committee.
II. Background
Council Direction re: Pesticide Use on Public and Private Lands
In October 2001, City Council considered a staff report entitled, “Pesticide Reduction on
Municipal Parkland and Open Spaces” (CS01093)(SPH1029) and recommended:
(a) That Staff proceed with the development of an Integrated Plant Health Program
(IPHP) which would include as a goal, the progressive reduction of lawn chemical use
on municipal parks and open spaces within the City of Hamilton;
(b) That Staff, in preparation of the plan, solicit public input. The process should
include, but not be limited to, a Hearings Sub-Committee, and consultation with
representatives of key stakeholder groups;
(c) That a public opinion survey be conducted utilizing the services of a professional
consultant at a cost of approximately $7,000.00, to be funded from within the current
operating budget;
(d) That Staff develop, in collaboration with community organizations, a co-ordinated
public pesticide education program aimed at helping residents make informed decisions
about pesticide use on residential property;
(e) That Staff, as part of the 2002 budget deliberations, report on the incremental
capital and operating expenses associated with the implementation of the Integrated
Plant Health Program;
(f) That the final IPHP be brought forward to a future Committee of the Whole
meeting for final approval, tentatively scheduled for spring 2002.
(g) That the Medical Officer of Health, in collaboration with key stakeholders, report
back to Committee of the Whole, proposing a framework to explore the issues of
municipal regulation of pesticide use on private lands in the City of Hamilton.
4. 4
Recommendations (a) through (f) will be addressed in a report prepared by the Parks
Division of the Community Service Department and scheduled to be presented to
Committee of the Whole during budget deliberations in May 2002.
This report has been prepared in consultation with the Community Services
Department, Parks Division and responds solely to recommendation (g). It provides a
preliminary examination of the issues surrounding municipal regulation of pesticide use
on private property and proposes the policy options to be explored in further detail and a
consultation framework for that examination. The health impacts, legal position and
cost implications of various policy options will be examined during the larger
consultation process and reported in a subsequent report.
Introduction
Pesticides is the term used to describe thousands of products that can be used to
control pests such as insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), fungus (fungicides) and
rats (rodenticides). There are more than 7,000 pesticide products registered for use in
Canada. The active ingredients most commonly used however include the following:
diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl as insecticides; 2,4-D, mecoprop and dicamba as
herbicides; and quintozene, iprodione, chlorothalonil as fungicides (Standing
Committee, 2000).
Industry sales for pesticides totalled almost $1.5 billion in 1997. Herbicides account for
85% of the market. While pesticides used for agricultural purposes account for 91% of
sales, the sales of pesticides used for non-agricultural purposes account for 56% of the
profits (Standing Committee, 2000).
Environment Canada estimates that approximately 1.3 million kilograms of chemical
pesticides were applied to lawns in Ontario by licensed applicators in 1993. This
represents about 25% of the amount used on agricultural land and it does not include
the pesticides applied directly by homeowners. Unfortunately, more recent data on
quantities used is not available (Environment Canada, 2002).
Pesticides are one of the few toxic agents that are intentionally released into the
environment. While pesticides used on lawns and gardens today do not present the
persistence concerns that are presented by pesticides such as DDT, they can harm
non-targeted plant and animal species directly and indirectly.
Summary of the Health Concerns
There are two broad types of concerns about health impacts that appear to be driving
the demand by some for pesticide by-laws that limit the cosmetic use of pesticides on
lawns and gardens. One type are concerns about chronic health effects such as cancer
and neurobehavioural deficits (eg. learning disabilities) that may result from low levels of
exposure (Daniels, 1997; Bosma, 2000). The other type of concerns are about acute
5. 5
health effects such as breathing difficulties that may be experienced by a small minority
of “sensitive” individuals upon exposure to higher levels of pesticides (HRM, 2000).
With the chronic health effects, concern appears to be greatest for exposures
encountered by the fetus and by young children who are particularly sensitive to all
types of toxic substances. Researchers from the U.S. National Cancer Institute who
have examined the studies directed at pesticides and childhood cancer have reported
that: “…it is noteworthy that many of the reported risks [for children] are of greater
magnitude than those observed in studies of pesticide-exposed adults, suggesting that
children may be particularly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of pesticides” (Hoar
Zahm, 1998).
While hundreds of studies have been directed at the health impacts of pesticides, it is
still very difficult to determine with scientific certainty if the particular pesticide products
in use today are actually causing some of the chronic health effects that have been
associated with pesticides in the studies conducted. To some extent, this scientific
uncertainty reflects the large variety of pesticide products in use, the mixed exposures
encountered by the populations being studied, the poor exposure records available for
the people being studied, and the large populations needed to prove causation given
the low levels of exposure.
For example, when one group of researchers critically reviewed 31 studies published
between 1970 and 1996 that evaluated the link between pesticides and childhood
cancer, they concluded that: “Although increased risk of some childhood cancers in
association with pesticide exposure is suggested by multiple studies, methodological
limitations common to many studies restrict conclusions; these include indirect exposure
classification, small sample size and potential biases in control selection” (Daniels,
Olshan & Savitz, 1997).
Some believe that there is little cause for concern with pesticide use given the low levels
of exposure encountered in environmental situations. For example, when researchers
from the European Crop Protection Association critically reviewed the scientific studies
directed at low level exposure to mixtures of pesticides, they concluded that: “….as a
general rule, exposure to mixtures of pesticides at low doses of the individual
constituents does not represent a potential source of concern to human health “ (Carpy,
2002).
The public health units in the City of Toronto and Halton Region have been a analysing
the scientific health literature related to pesticides used for “cosmetic purposes” for
several months. The Toronto report is currently being peer reviewed by several experts
who represent different perspectives on the issue. These two reports should be
available in April 2002 and will be reviewed as part of the next stage in this process.
6. 6
Scientific Uncertainty and Prudent Avoidance
While the scientific debate on pesticides will continue, a number of public health
organizations have decided that there is sufficient evidence of harm to warrant
significant reductions in the use of pesticides.
Researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute have articulated the view that:
“Although research is underway to characterize the risks of childhood cancer associated
with pesticides and identify the specific pesticides responsible, it is prudent to reduce, or
where possible, eliminate pesticide exposure to children, given their increased
vulnerability and susceptibility. In particular, efforts should be focused to reduce
exposure to pesticides used in homes and gardens and on lawns and park which are
the major sources of pesticide exposure for most children” (Hoar Zahm, 1998).
The Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA) has recommended that municipalities
restrict the non-essential use of chemical pesticides on public and private lands stating
that “…appropriate measures should be taken where there is reason to believe that a
pesticide is likely to cause harm” (OPHA, 2001).
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) has
recommended that the cosmetic use of pesticides should be ended within two years
because: “…growing evidence that the health of future generations may be severely
harmed by pesticides, alone or in combination with other toxic chemicals now
permeating the global ecosphere” (CAPE, 2000).
The Canadian Cancer Society has concluded that: “Current evidence suggests that
domestic exposure to pesticides probably causes less than one percent of cancer
deaths and is, therefore, a small, but potentially important concern” (CCS, 2002). It has
recommended that pesticide use on lawn and gardens should be avoided because: 1)
there is suggestive evidence which indicates that pesticides present a cancer risk to
humans; 2) there are no clear health benefits associated with their use on lawns; 3)
there are no important economic benefits associated with their use on lawns; and 4) it is
unlikely that exposure can be avoided when they are used on lawns (CCS, 2002).
The position of these public health organizations is echoed by the 17 Federal Members
of Parliament (MPs) who examined the issue of pesticides as members of the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development: “Given what is known or
suspected about the harmful effects of these products and given the purely esthetic
purposes they serve, the Committee favours a ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic
purposes”.
The four organizations sited above have made recommendations that are aligned with
the precautionary principle articulated in the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development under the United Nations Environment Program which states that: “
….Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
7. 7
prevent environmental degradation”. This principle has since been codified in the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999).
Some argue that the precautionary principle is meant to be applied to substances or
situations that present a risk of irreversible damage that is global in its magnitude.
However, to those in the public health field, the precautionary principle builds upon the
concept of “prudent avoidance” that has been 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” (O’Riordan,
1994).
Regulatory Process
Pesticide regulations are administered by the federal and provincial governments. The
federal Pest Management Agency (PMRA), under Health Canada, is responsible for
conducting assessments of the environmental and health impacts of pesticides. Based
on this assessment process the PMRA decides whether to grant a pesticide product
approval for use. If approved a pesticide product is issued a Pest Control Product Act
Registration number. The provincial Ministry of Environment is responsible for the post-
registration of pesticides. This includes enforcing regulations to ensure pesticides are
stored, displayed, sold, transported, used and disposed of properly and safely (as
outlined in the Pesticides Act).
III. Legal Analysis
The City of Hamilton’s Legal Services is in the course of reviewing the provisions of the
federal Pest Control Products Act and the provincial Pesticides Act, and the regulations
under each of those Acts, in order to determine whether there is a possibility for lawful
regulation of non-essential pesticide use on private lands by municipalities. Legal
Services has reviewed this preliminary report.
The below summary of the legal issues is based on a review of several documents
including the: Supreme Court of Canada’s Hudson decision (File No. 26937); an
overview presented to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Big City
Mayor’s Caucus by Counsel at the Sierra Legal Defense Fund; and a report prepared
on Bill 111 (an Act to Revise the Municipal Act) by Counsel at the Canadian
Environmental Law Association (CELA). Counsel for the Sierra Legal Defense Fund
represented FCM as intervenors in the Hudson case, while several community and
public health groups were represented by Counsel from CELA.
Supreme Court of Canada Decision
In 1991, the Town on Hudson adopted a by-law (By-law 270) that restricted the use of
pesticides within the City’s boundaries. This by-law was appealed to the Supreme
Court of Canada by landscaping and lawn care companies charged under the by-law in
November 1992. In June 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Town of
8. 8
Hudson had the legitimate power to regulate pesticide use under the “general welfare”
provisions contained in section 410 of the Quebec Cities and Towns Act (CTA) which
states that: “The council may make a by-law: (1) to secure peace, order, good
government, health and general welfare in the territory of the municipality, provided
such by-laws are not contrary to the laws of Canada, or Quebec…” (Supreme Court,
2001).
The Supreme Court concluded that the Hudson By-law reflects the Town’s desire to
protect the health of its citizens and as such, should be allowed under section 410, and
that in applying the precautionary principle, the Town did not have to prove harm to
human health in order to act. The Court also decided that while an absolute ban on the
use of pesticides would be forbidden because of the long-standing principle that
“delegated legislation must not be prohibitory”, the Hudson By-law bans only the non-
essential use of pesticides. It concluded that the Hudson By-law does not conflict with
either the federal Pest Control Products Act or the province’s Pesticides Act, but rather
that the three laws establish a tri-level regulatory regime (Supreme Court, 2001).
Applicability to Ontario
The Hudson decision applies to the province of Quebec and reflects the state of the law
in that province. It is not yet clear how it will apply in Ontario. The “general welfare”
provisions used in the Quebec case are captured in section 102 of the existing
Municipal Act in Ontario, which reads: “Every council may pass such by-laws and make
such regulations for the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the
municipality in matters not specifically provided for by the Act as may be deemed
expedient and not contrary to law…”
Counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) maintain that Bill 111
2001 – an Act to Revise the Municipal Act – should not restrict the right of Ontario
municipalities to pass by-laws in the future. CELA argues that section 130 in Bill 111 is
analogous to section 102 of the current Ontario Municipal Act. It states that: “A
municipality may regulate matters not specifically provided for by this Act or any other
Act for purposes related to health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the
municipality” (CELA, 2001).
Many municipalities across Ontario are currently examining the legal issues and policy
options related to municipal regulation of pesticides on private property. Several cities
and towns have recommended that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
should produce a legal opinion on the applicability of the Hudson decision to Ontario
under the existing Ontario Municipal Act and under Bill 111 that will take effect in
2003.
9. 9
IV. Actions in Other Ontario Municipalities
By-laws in Quebec
The Hudson By-law prohibits the spread and use of a pesticide throughout the territory
of the Town. Exceptions to this prohibition are spelled out and generally apply to
pesticide use for agriculture and for public health reasons (eg. inside buildings, in pools,
to purify water, and to destroy plants or animals that constitute a danger for human
beings). Golf courses have been given five years to phase out the use of pesticides
(Supreme Court, 2001).
Approximately 35 municipalities in Quebec have adopted pesticide control by-laws.
None of these constitute a total prohibition of pesticides. All include some sort of
exemptions. In Quebec, by-laws have been used to: require signage before and/or after
pesticide use; require notification of pesticide use to property owners and/or neighbours;
to limit pesticide use during particular environmental conditions (eg. high winds or high
temperatures) or during specified times (eg. pesticide-free summers); as well as for
widespread prohibitions.
Halifax By-law
The only community to pass a pesticides by-law outside of the province of
Quebec is Halifax in Nova Scotia. The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM)
passed its by-law with enabling legislation, granted by the Province in 1999,
that was specific to the application and use of pesticides, herbicides and
insecticides on residential and public property within the HRM.
The Halifax By-law, which has been in effect since August 2000, phases out the
use of pesticides on public and private property over a four-year period. In the
first year, the By-law prohibited the application of pesticides on municipal
property. In the second year, it prohibited pesticide application within 50
meters of: 1) the boundary of a school, daycare, park playground, licensed
senior citizens’ residence, university, church or hospital; and 2) the property of
a person registered as someone who suffers life-threatening reactions to
pesticides. In the fourth year (2003), the By-law will prohibit pesticide
application within the entire regional municipality.
The By-law does allow the use of pesticides for plants or insects that “constitute
a danger for human beings or to control insects that have infested a property” if
the application is specifically permitted by an inspector for that purpose. It also
provides clear rules about notification before applying pesticides and signage
before and after the application of pesticides.
In the summer of 1999, the HRM established a Pesticide Advisory Committee
to provide advice on the development and implementation of the pesticides by-
law. The Committee was composed of representatives of industry, the
10. 10
community, environmental groups and regulatory bodies. It submitted a
consensus and a non-consensus report to Council in December of 1999. In
2000, staff submitted five supplementary reports to Council and convened three
public hearings on the proposal submitted.
A concurrent public awareness and education program on sustainable
gardening and landscape maintenance practices was developed and
implemented during the early stages of the By-law’s implementation. Start up
funds of $120,000 were required to establish information processing and
handling costs, advertising, public information and education costs. In October
2001, staff reported that a simple, yet effective, permitting process had been
put in place to administer the notwithstanding clauses contained in the By-law
that seemed to be working well.
Actions in Ontario
Since June 2001, local and regional municipalities across Ontario have been
wrestling with the implications of the Supreme Court’s Hudson decision. One
source has indicated that over 25 municipalities in Ontario are currently
considering policy options related to the cosmetic use of pesticides on public
and private property. For the purposes of this report, several local and regional
municipalities (Toronto, Halton Region, City of Burlington, Sarnia, Waterloo
Region) known to be active on this issue were contacted for information related
to the policy options being considered and the consultation processes being
used. Summaries of the findings for each of these municipalities are provided
in Appendix A (attached).
Timelines
Most of the municipalities in Ontario are still involved in the investigation or consultation
stages of their processes. One of the exceptions is Sarnia, which had completed its
consultation process and prepared a report for Council’s consideration in February
2002. Sarnia’s Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC) recommended the
development of an educational campaign on pesticides along with formalizing the City’s
Integrated Plant Health Program (IPHP) for all City-owned properties.
Toronto and Halton Region were in the process of preparing reports that would provide:
in-depth analyses of the health issues; the results of public surveys conducted in their
respective communities; the results of public consultation processes undertaken to date;
a recommendation about policy options; and a recommendation about next steps. Both
reports are expected to be completed by April 2002.
Waterloo Region has established an inter-municipal staff subcommittee to examine the
issues related to pesticide use on private properties and has only recently begun to
examine the issues in depth. The City of Burlington has prepared a preliminary report
that summarizes the legal issues and the policy options, and which recommend steps
11. 11
for further investigation. It is unlikely that any of these communities will have their
processes completed before the end of the summer.
V. Actions in the City of Hamilton
Pesticide Use on City-Owned Property
The Parks staff have made significant strides in recent years to reduce the use of
pesticides on City-owned property. For example, in 2001, Parks spot sprayed only
1.1% of the approximately 5,500 acres of parks, municipal properties and open spaces
(excluding cemeteries and golf courses) maintained by the City, while in 1999, it blanket
sprayed approximately 7% of the green space belonging to the City.
Over the last year, Parks has formally reviewed its policies and practices of pesticide
use on City-owned property and conducted a comprehensive consultation process on
the policies being formally developed. In October 2001, Parks sought and gained
Council approval to proceed with the development of an Integrated Plant Health
Program (IPHP), which “would include as a goal, the progressive reduction of lawn
chemical use on municipal parks and open spaces within the City of Hamilton”.
In November 2001, Parks convened an in-depth Workshop for City staff and
representatives of Landscape Ontario and the Hamilton Coalition on Pesticides with
experts from the Guelph Turfgrass Institute (GTI) and the Canadian Network of
Toxicology Centres. In January 2002, approximately 50 people participated in the
Hearings Subcommittee held by Committee of the Whole on Parks’ proposal. Parks
has also contracted the services of a professional consultant to conduct a public opinion
survey to determine how Hamilton residents feel about the City’s parks and the City’s
use of pesticide. Parks has written a report that describes the IPHP developed for City-
owned property and summarizes the findings of the public consultation process and the
results of the public opinion survey. This report is scheduled to go to Committee of the
Whole during May 2002 budget deliberations.
Consultation to Date on Pesticide Use on Private Property
Staff in the Social & Public Health Services Department have built upon the
consultation process begun by Parks. They have met twice with the stakeholders
from the November Workshop to solicit their advice on the policy options and
consultation process to be proposed in this report. A list of stakeholders to involve in
the larger consultation process has also been developed. This report has also
benefited from the views expressed by speakers from public health organizations,
environmental groups, industry associations, and regulating agencies at the Caledon
Pesticides Forum convened in February 2002.
12. 12
VI. Stakeholder Positions
Hamilton Coalition on Pesticides
The Hamilton Coalition on Pesticide Issues is a voluntary organization. It represents 20
community organizations with approximately 2,000 members in the City of Hamilton.
The Coalition promotes the use of good horticultural practices (nourishing the soil, using
plants appropriate to this area's growing conditions, and using alternatives to
pesticides). It supports the city’s development of an IPHP for public property and would
like the city to enact a by-law, which would phase out the cosmetic use of pesticides on
all public and private property in Hamilton.
The Coalition believes that the public is not adequately protected by the federal
regulation of pesticides or by the provincial licensing of pesticide applicators. It believes
that that the “Pesticides” report prepared by the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development (1999) and the “Managing the Risks of
Toxic Substances” report prepared by the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development (1999) support its position.
The Coalition believes that a by-law that eliminates the cosmetic use of pesticides on
private property is essential in order to eliminate the risk of unwanted exposure and
subsequent health problems. It would support exemptions to this policy for situations
that present a risk to public health when all alternatives have been exhausted. It also
believes that public education is essential to ensure that the public understands the
health risks associated with pesticides, and to gain compliance with, and interest in, the
development of alternative lawn and garden practices.
The Coalition has recommended that the City establish a Pesticide Advisory Committee
(PAC) that would provide direction and advice on the development and implementation
of a strategy that encourages alternatives to pesticides on public and private property.
The Coalition has recommended that the PAC should be composed of City Councillors
and representatives from the landscape industry, sports associations, community
groups, environmental groups, school boards, labour, the chemically sensitive, and non-
affiliated experts (e.g. ground water, medical, academic, turf).
Landscape Industry
The landscape industry includes companies in the landscape business such as
nurseries, lawn care companies, garden centres, and landscape designers.
The landscape industry representatives included in this process work with
Weedman and Landscape Ontario and are involved with the Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Council of Ontario and with an industry-funded organization
called the Environmental Coalition of Ontario. They recognize that there is a
movement across the county to reduce the use of pesticides on lawns and
gardens, and support the notion of reduction rather than elimination. They
13. 13
applaud the City’s decision to introduce an IPHP and to gradually reduce the
cosmetic use of pesticides on green space.
The IPM Council is in the process of developing an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Accreditation process in an attempt to significantly reduce
pesticide use among all sectors of the landscape industry by encouraging the
application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Plant Health Care (PHC)
principles. It has established a governing body (PHC/IPM Council of Ontario)
and is actively working towards implementation of a comprehensive
accreditation process which includes education, examination, and auditing by a
third party, for individuals working in the industry. The IPM Council hopes to
have the IPM Accreditation process developed for full implementation by the fall
of 2002.
The landscape industry representatives believe that pesticide use on private
property should not be regulated at the municipal level. With the introduction of
the new federal initiatives (ie. product re-evaluation and the Healthy Lawns
project), they believe that pesticides are adequately regulated through the Pest
Controls Products Act that is administered by the Pest Management Regulatory
Agency in Health Canada, and through the Pesticides Act and Regulation 914
that are administered by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
The landscape industry representatives believe that it is important for the public
to understand that the existing federal and provincial legislation forbids them
from marketing, selling, or making claims about any "alternative" products that
are not legally registered for the “claimed” use.
They are also concerned that municipal by-laws will inadvertently target
professional applicators whom they believe to be generally well trained and well
regulated by the province, while doing little to reduce pesticide application by
individuals whom they consider to be untrained and unregulated because a by-
law could not prohibit retailers from selling pesticides to members of the public.
The landscape industry representatives do agree that pesticide reductions are
needed but believe that that reductions are best achieved with by
formalizing and enforcing industry initiatives, and by educating the public about
good horticultural practices, the alternatives to pesticides and the safe handling
procedures required when pesticides are used. They feel that public education
has been hindered by the PMRA’s reticence to register pesticide alternatives.
Lawn care companies are more than willing to use alternative products as long
as they are registered, effective and demanded by their customers. At present,
they feel that these products have not developed to the point where pesticide
use can completely stop.
The landscape industry representatives have suggested that the City staff
convene two in-depth meetings, one with the landscape industry and one with
14. 14
community and environmental groups, to explore their respective positions on,
and concerns about, municipal regulation of pesticides on private property, in a
non-confrontational way. They also feel strongly that public consultation should
be done in a way that solicits the views of all members of the public especially
their customers.
VII. Scope
Focus on Non-Essential Use on Lawns and Gardens
All of the municipalities in Ontario (Halton Region, Burlington, Sarnia, Waterloo
Region, Toronto, Halifax) that were contacted for this report were examining the
cosmetic or non-essential use of pesticides on lawns and gardens. In
communities where pesticide use has not been publicly examined before, the
focus is on pesticides used on both public and private property. In those
communities that have established formal policies for pesticide use, and/or
Integrated Plant Health Programs (IPHP) for public property, the focus has now
shifted to private property.
None of the municipalities contacted are addressing policy options for
pesticides used for agriculture or for indoor applications at this time. Given that
the Supreme Court allowed the Hudson By-law, in part, because it focused on
the non-essential uses of pesticides on lawns and gardens, it makes sense for
Hamilton to limit the scope of its examination to the non-essential of pesticides
on lawns and gardens on private property as well.
VIII. Policy Options
Rights and Beliefs
Pesticide use on private property is a complicated issue that cuts across many
beliefs and rights. Many believe that they have the right to do as they choose
on their property, and for many, the maintenance of a lawn with non-ornamental
species (e.g., weeds) is a high priority. Others believe that pesticides present
serious, and in some cases irreversible harm, to humans and to the
environment, and that private property rights must not supersede the rights of
others to safety and good health.
Significant Reductions Required
There does appear to be a consensus among all parties that there should be a
significant reduction in the quantity of pesticides used for lawns and gardens. A
number of municipalities in Ontario have cut pesticide use on City-owned
property by 90 to 95% over the last number of years. The City of Waterloo,
15. 15
which committed to significant reductions in pesticide use ten years ago, used
absolutely no pesticides on its parks for the first time in 2001. The IPM Council
is establishing an IPM Accreditation process for its members in an attempt to
significantly reduce pesticide use among those working in the lawn care
industry as well.
Where the parties disagree is on the depth of the pesticides reductions required
and on the means to achieve those reductions. Landscape Ontario has
indicated that IPM can reduce pesticide use on lawns by 60% and that an IPM
Accreditation process will encourage lawn care providers to achieve this
reduction. On the other hand, environmental, community and public health
organizations have called for the elimination of pesticides used for cosmetic
purposes on public and private property, and for municipal by-laws, as well as
education, to achieve this end.
Non-Regulatory Options
People on all sides of this issue agree that public education and perhaps social
marketing are essential to drive the reductions needed. Lawn care providers
indicate that their pesticide packages are demanded by a public who want
perfect ornamental lawns at little cost. They feel that public education could
help educate their customers about the alternatives to pesticides and the
benefits associated with them.
Environmental groups feel that the public needs to be educated about the
health hazards presented by pesticides and the alternatives to them. They also
believe that the education must be directed at changing the public perception
about what constitutes a beautiful green space.
A successful education campaign would likely require a substantial investment
in staff and resources. Changing behaviours requires long-term, multipronged
social marketing approaches on a large scale.
The landscape industry representatives have suggested that the City could
become involved in the IPM Council’s Accreditation process as a means of
addressing pesticide use on private property.
Regulatory Options
In situations where the activities of one person in a community can have a
detrimental impact on another, and subject to any conflicting provisions in
federal and provincial legislation, by-laws can be used to provide regulatory
protection to the ones affected. In the case of pesticides, it can be argued that
some citizens consider themselves affected by their pesticide-using neighbours
whether the health effects associated with pesticides are scientifically
demonstrated or not. And some chemically sensitive individuals can
16. 16
experience serious acute health effects such as shortness of breath or severe
allergic reactions when pesticides are sprayed in the area surrounding their
homes.
On the other hand, it is difficult to pass a by-law that limits the rights of many if
the majority of citizens do not believe that health impacts are associated with
pesticides, and do not believe that alternative technologies, practices and
services exist. It is possible that many people would choose pesticide-free
alternatives if they knew about them, believed they worked, and knew that they
could contract companies to provide them. The question is, will people choose
these unknown options, particularly if they are more expensive, if their ability to
access pesticides is not removed by municipal legislation?
Pesticide by-laws can be drafted in a wide variety of ways to achieve a variety
of purposes. In some cases, by-laws have been clearly designed to reduce
pesticide use and potential exposure across a municipality; in other cases, they
appear to have been designed to empower individuals concerned about
pesticides to take action to protect themselves
Widespread Prohibitions
To date, no municipality in Canada has totally prohibited the use of chemical
pesticides on lawns and gardens. In Hudson and Halifax, where widespread
prohibitions have been introduced for private and public property with by-laws,
exemptions have been allowed for those situations that could present a risk to
public health or significant damage to property. In Hudson, the pesticides
prohibition was immediate with a five year phase out period being provided to
golf courses. In Halifax, the pesticides prohibition was phased in over a four
year period.
A widespread prohibition has the potential to significantly and effectively
reduces the cosmetic use of pesticides across the municipality. It has the
potential to eliminate the acute exposure situations that are a concern for the
“sensitive”, while also eliminating the low level exposures that are a concern to
some public health organizations and some members of the public.
On the other hand, a widespread prohibition has the potential of being very
unpopular among citizens who feel it infringes on their property rights and/or
who place a high value on their ornamental lawns, free of non-ornamental
species (weeds). It is possible that some would simply ignore the by-law as it
would do nothing to prohibit them from buying pesticides at a local store. It is
likely that public dissatisfaction could be reduced by providing a prolonged
phase out period that is accompanied by an intensive education and/or social
marketing campaign that focuses on the health and environmental concerns
associated with pesticides, the alternatives to pesticides, and the alternatives to
traditional lawns.
17. 17
Focused Restrictions
As indicated earlier, municipal by-laws do not necessarily have to mandate a
widespread prohibition of pesticides to serve the needs of the community. A
by-law could be used to encourage a shift in attitudes and use of pesticides
within the community. For example, a by-law that required IPM accreditation
for all companies using pesticides on lawns and gardens within City limits could
“encourage” lawn care companies and their customers to significantly reduce
pesticide use while adopting alternative technologies and practices. This type
of approach could substantially reduce the quantity of pesticides used across
the City and educate a large number of residents about the alternatives that
exist.
A by-law could also be used to provide added protection to those members of
society who may be more sensitive to the toxic properties of pesticides. For
example, the 50 meter buffer zone required around all properties with sensitive
receptors (eg. schools) in Halifax’s phase out period, could be adopted as a
long-term measure in another community that does not support a widespread
prohibition. This type of approach could provide a greater level of protection to
the small minority who suffer acute effects in response to pesticides, while
providing a greater level of protection to the sensitive members of society such
as children, who may be more susceptible to low levels of exposure. A buffer
zone could also be extended to creeks and waterways to provide additional
protection to aquatic organisms. Sensitive individuals (the term ‘sensitive’
requiring specific definition) could also demand a buffer around their properties
under certain by-law scenarios.
These more focused approaches are less likely to provoke a widespread
backlash from citizens who are not concerned about the use of pesticides. On
the other hand, the focused approach is not as equitable in terms of those
impacted or in terms of those “protected”. They will do little to educate the
individuals who do not hire lawn care operators and who may present a risk to
him/herself and his/her neighbours.
Signage and Notification Systems
A by-law could also be used to require notification of neighbours or to build
upon rules about signage for pesticides used on lawns and gardens.
This type of by-law has the advantage of providing additional information to
those citizens who are concerned about the health effects associated with
pesticide while infringing very little on the rights of their neighbours. For
example, notification the day before could be used by some households to
ensure that windows are shut on the day that pesticides are sprayed on their
neighbour’s lawn.
18. 18
On the other hand, this kind of by-law does nothing to reduce overall use or
release of pesticides into the environment, and little to reduce the low level
exposure situations that concern some public health organizations and some
citizens.
Recommendations to Other Levels of Government
There are limitations to what can be accomplished with regulatory action at the
municipal level. There are concerns, for example, about the sales of pesticides
to individual residents who may not be aware of the health concerns associated
with them or of the proper precautions to be taken when handling them. Those
issues that cannot be addressed at the municipal levels should be explored
with provincial and federal regulatory agencies during the consultation period,
and may be the subject of recommendations to be directed at the provincial and
federal levels of government.
IX. Consultation Processes
Who Develops the Strategy?
There are three questions to be answered when developing a consultation
framework and process. The first question is: who should be involved in
investigating the issue and developing the strategy? In a few of the
municipalities contacted, this task was given to an Advisory Committee. In
Sarnia, the Advisory Committee was composed of Councillors and non-
affiliated citizens. In Halifax, the Advisory Committee was composed of
stakeholders with a consensus and non-consensus report being produced. In
other communities, such as Halton, the Region of Waterloo, Burlington and
Toronto, staff were appointed the task of developing the strategy. In Toronto,
staff have been consulting with a Pesticides Subcommittee composed of staff
and stakeholders while in Burlington, staff have been consulting with a
Sustainable Development Committee composed of citizens. A Council
Subcommittee could also address the issue as has been done for the smoking
by-law in Hamilton.
Staff are recommending that a pesticides advisory committee of Councillors
with balanced representation from the landscape industry and community and
environmental organizations should be established to examine the policy
options and develop a strategy for Hamilton. For example, the composition
could include three Councillors, three industry representatives and three
environmental/community representatives with appropriate staff support
provided by the Social and Public Health Services Department.
19. 19
How should the Public be Consulted when the Strategy is being Developed?
The second question is: how should the public be consulted while the proposal
is being developed? In some of the municipalities contacted, the staff or
advisory committee responsible for developing the proposal, met with
representatives from various agencies and interests informally and individually.
In other municipalities, formal meetings were held with individuals interested in
or affected by the issue. In Halton, these formal meetings were held on two
separate days; one with representatives of community and environmental
groups and one with representatives of the lawn care industry and the
regulating agencies. In Toronto, one large meeting was convened for all
stakeholders with a professional facilitator hired to chair the meeting for the
day. In a few municipalities, public meetings were held where any interested
person from the community could express his/her position on the issue. In
Toronto, Halton and Burlington, surveys have been, or will be, conducted to poll
the opinions of the broader community.
In Hamilton, it is recommended that the Pesticides Advisory Committee (PAC)
convene several in-depth meetings to discuss policy options with stakeholders:
1) one with local and regional representatives of lawn care companies, golf
courses and other local businesses; 2) one with local and regional
representatives of community, environmental and public health organizations
including at least one “organic” lawn care industry; 3) one with representatives
from Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the
local Conservation Authority; 4) one with local school boards and other
agencies that serve children, the sick and the elderly; and 5) one with the
general public.
The Advisory Committee should also explore alternative methods of soliciting
public opinion that are more accessible to the general public. For example,
citizens could be encouraged to make submissions on the proposal by e-mail or
by telephone lines.
How should the Public be Consulted on the Proposal once Developed?
The third question is: how should the broader public be consulted about the
proposal once developed? Among municipalities in Ontario, this question is still
being answered. Some indicated that the broader consultation would occur at
Council meetings or Committee meetings. In Sarnia, the Advisory Committee
convened a public meeting to vet the proposal before taking it to Council. In
Hamilton, Council may wish to receive delegations directly at a meeting of the
Hearings Sub-committee.
20. 20
X. Recommendations
It is recommended that:
(a) A pesticides advisory committee with Councillors and a balanced representation
of stakeholders be established, with appropriate staff support from Social and
Public Health Services, to explore the health, legal, financial and practical issues
associated with a variety of policy options that could be used to reduce non-
essential chemical pesticide use on private green space within the City, and
report back to Council with a recommended approach by Spring 2003;
(b) The following policy options be included among those to be considered:
(i) Development of an intensive education and social marketing campaign;
(ii) Encouragement of industry self-regulation through the voluntary Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) accreditation process being initiated by the IPM
Council of Ontario;
(iii) Adoption of a by-law that incorporates one or several of the following
options:
(1) Sets clear rules about the signage and notification requirements that
must precede and follow pesticide application on private property;
(2) Requires industry administered IPM accreditation of all companies
applying pesticides on private green space within the City;
(3) Limits the frequency and/or timing of pesticide application;
(4) Specifies buffer zones around the properties of sensitive receptors
(eg. schools, sensitive individuals) and waterways; and/or
(5) Prohibits pesticide use on private green space throughout the City
with or without a phase-in period; and
(c) When developing the approach to be taken, the pesticides advisory committee:
(i) Further investigate the health, legal and cost implications associated with
the policy options above;
(ii) Conduct five separate consultation meetings with business groups,
community/environmental organizations, regulatory agencies, service
agencies and the general public that may have a particular interest in the
issue; and
(iii) Solicit the opinions of the broader public through e-mails, hot lines and
other available communication means.
21. 21
References:
Bosma, H. et al. “Pesticide Exposure and risk of mild cognitive dysfunction”,
The Lancet. Vol 356. Sept 2000.
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Position
Statement on Synthetic Pesticides. 2000. www.cape.ca
Canadian Cancer Socieity (CCS)/National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC).
Presentation by Dr. Barbara Whylie to the Pesticides Forum in Caledon.
February 2002.
Carpy, Serge, and Werner Kobel, John Doe. European Crop Protection
Association. “Health Risk of Low-Dose Pesticides Mixtures: A review of the
1985-1998 Literature on Combination Toxicology and Health Risk
Assessment”, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Vol 3,
2000. p.1-25
CELA. “Bill 111 2001 An Act to Revise the Municipal Act: Comment by CELA
regarding the Potential Impact on the Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
Regarding Municipal Pesticide By-Laws”. Prepared by Theresa McClenaghan,
Counsel. November 2001.
City of Burlington. “Draft – Update on Pesticide Issue: Options to Reuce the
Non-essential Use of Pesticides on Private Property”. Staff Report: January 30,
2002.
City of Toronto. “Strategy to Achieve a Phase Out of Non-essential Use of
Pesticides”, Staff Report: July 10, 2001.
Daniels, Julie and Andrew Olshan, Kay Teschke, Irva Hertz-Picciotto, David
Savitz, Julie Blatt et al. “Residential Pesticide Exposure and Neuroblastoma”,
Epidemiology. Vol 12. 2001.
Daniels, Julie and Andrew Olshan and David Savitz. (1997) “Pesticides and
Childhood Cancers”, Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 105, No 10,
1997.
DeMarco, Jerry. Sierra Legal Defence Fund. “Overview of the Hudson
Decision”, Presentation of the FCM Big City Mayors’ Caucus, October 21,
2001.
Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). “Pesticide By-law P-800 Respecting the
Regulation of Pesticides, Herbicides and Insecticides – 2001 Overview”. Staff
Report: 2001.
22. 22
Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM). “Pesticide by-law”, Staff Report: March 7,
2000.
Halifax Regional Municipality. By-Law P-800 Respecting the Regulation of
Pesticides, Herbicides, and Insectides. Enacted pursuant to Sections 533 and
171(1)(c) of the Municipal Government Act. August, 2000.
Hoar Zahm, Sheila and Mary Ward. National Cancer Institute. “Pesticides and
Childhood Cancer”, Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 106, Supp 3,
June 1998. p.893-907
Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA). OPHA Resolution on the Non-
Essential Use of Chemical Pesticides on Public and Private Lands. 2001.
O’Riordian, Tim and James Cameron”. Intrepreting the Precautionary Principle,
Earthscan Publications Ltd: 1994.
Regional Municipality of Halton. “Health Risks Associated with the Use of
Pesticides”, Staff Report: June 16, 2000.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. “Pesticide Use”. Staff Report: September
18, 2001.
Sarnia Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC). “Pesticide Study by the
SEAC”, Staff Report: January 23, 2002.
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the
Environment. May 2000.
Environment Canada, Ecosystem Health Division. Pesticides in Surface
Waters of Ontario. Presentation by John Struger to Pesticides Forum in
Caledon. February 2002.
Supreme Court of Canada Decision. Canada Ltee Versus Town of Hudson,
File No.: 26937, June 28, 2001.
Contacts:
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Nichola Crawhall, Senior Policy
Analyst. ncrawahall@amo.municom.com
Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). Kathy Cooper, Researcher. 416-
960-2284
23. 23
City of Burlington. Lynn Robichaud, Senior Environmental Coordinator. 905-
335-7600
Halifax Regional Municipality. Stephen King, Manager – Senior Advisor, Parks
and Natural Areas. sking@region.halifax.ns.ca
Halton Region Health Department. Julie Davis, Environmental Health
Specialist. 905-825-6060 ext. 7678
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Mike Gianfrancesco, Manager, Health and
Injury Prevention, Community Health Department. 519-883-2271
Sarnia Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC). Kim Bresee, Planning, City
of Sarnia. 519-332-0330 ext. 292
Toronto Public Health. Carol Mee, Coordinator, Environmental Information.
416-338-8098
Toronto Public Health. Loren Vanderlinden, Research Consultant. 416-338-
8095
24. 24
Appendix A:
Summaries: Activities in Several Other Ontario Municipalities
Sarnia
In July 2001, Sarnia’s City Council instructed the City’s Environmental Advisory
Committee (SEAC) to examine the issue of pesticide control and report back
with recommendations. SEAC is a committee composed of Councillors (2) and
citizens (7) appointed by Council with one staff person from Planning. The
citizens are professionals with knowledge in science and environmental issues;
they do not represent stakeholders.
SEAC gathered information from the scientific literature, Health Canada, the
Ministry of the Environment, and other municipalities. It also held three public
meetings to collect input from the community. At two of those meetings,
citizens were invited to offer their comments about actions that should be taken
by the City. At the third, SEAC presented its conclusions and heard comments
on their conclusions. About 100 citizens in total participated in the three public
meetings.
SEAC focused on the cosmetic use of pesticides only. Agricultural use of
pesticides and any use of pesticides that is required by law or by a regulatory
agency were excluded from the Committee’s recommendations. Over the last
ten years, Sarnia has cut its own use of pesticides by 90% and implemented an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.
SEAC has recommended that: 1) the City of Sarnia implement an Integrated
Plant Health Program (IPHP) on City controlled properties; and 2) the City
champion a Pesticides Educational Program (PEP) within Sarnia through a
sub-committee of the SEAC. The PEP should be developed in consultation
with all interested parties and should focus on helping residents with the
“responsible and minimal use of pesticides and the promotion of alternatives to
pesticide use”. SEAC’s report was scheduled to go to City Council on February
18, 2002.
City of Toronto
Since December 1998, Toronto has reduced pesticide use on parks, sports fields
and roadsides by more than 95%. The reduction strategy was developed by a
Council appointed Pesticides Subcommittee composed of staff from public health,
parks and works, and representatives from the lawn care industry, the golfing
association, the local union, a local environmental group, an organic lawn care
company, and the local school board. In 2000, the Pesticides Subcommittee
launched a pesticide reduction communications plan to encourage voluntary
pesticide use reduction on private property.
25. 25
In July 2001, Toronto Board of Health instructed the Medical Officer of Health to prepare
a public discussion document that seeks broad input on the nature and scope of a
potential pesticides by-law for the City of Toronto. City Council endorsed this
recommendation in November 2001, and instructed the preparation of reports on the
legal issues, the economic impacts, and the enforcement issues by the City Solicitor
and two of the City’s Commissioners. Toronto Public Health is currently preparing a
report for the April Board of Health meeting that will: 1) summarize the scientific
literature on the health impacts of pesticides; 2) provide the results of a public opinion
survey conducted on pesticides; 3) provide the results of the consultation process
conducted to date; 4) make recommendations on the broad policy options to be
considered; and 5) suggest the process by which decisions should be made.
To solicit the views of the various stakeholders interested in or affected by this
policy discussion, Toronto Public Health and the Pesticides Subcommittee
convened a meeting of 55 individuals identified as interested in or affected by a
pesticides by-law to a day-long meeting to discuss their views. The meeting was
facilitated by a professional and neutral facilitator. Each participant was given an
opportunity to present his/her positions and all participated in a discussion to
explore common ground.
Halton Region
The Region of Halton Health Department prepared a preliminary report on the
health effects of pesticides in June 2000. One of the recommendations made
by Regional Council at that time was to establish a committee to address “the
issue of pesticide use on public and private lands”. The Halton Inter-municipal
Pesticide Review Committee was established with staff representatives from
the Region’s Health Department, the Towns of Oakville, Milton, and Halton
Hills, and the City of Burlington.
The Committee organized two stakeholder meetings - one with 30
organizations which regulate or use pesticides, and one with members of
environmental/community organizations who have an interest in this topic - to
provide an in-depth discussion of the issues related to pesticide use and
municipal regulation.
In addition, the Committee has developed a public survey to explore public
opinion about the use of pesticides on public and private land. This survey is
being administered through the Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System
(RRFSS) administered by the York University Institute for Social Research.
Under RRFSS, 100 Halton residents will be surveyed each month for six
months beginning in October 2001. The Committee has also conducted a
survey on 124 businesses to explore opinions about pesticide use and bans
among Halton’s business sector.
26. 26
The Committee is currently preparing a report for Regional Council that will: 1)
summarize the health literature related to pesticides; 2) describe the
consultation process undertaken and the findings of that process; 3) provide the
results of the RRFSS survey; 4) provide the results of the business survey; and
5) provide recommendations to Regional and local Municipal Councils. The
Committee plans to submit this report to Regional Council in April 2002.
City of Burlington
In 2001, the City of Burlington established the Healthy Green Spaces (HGS) Committee
to examine the ways in which the City might reduce its reliance on pesticides. The HGS
Committee, composed of City staff from Parks & Recreation, Parks Maintenance (ie.
Parks, Forestry, Horticulture, Golf), Engineering and Communications, has produced a
report that summarizes the issues, initiatives, and policy options, and stakeholder
opinions related to the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property, and recommends
a course of action for Council’s consideration.
This report, which is scheduled to be submitted to City Council on February 25, 2002,
has been developed in consultation with the Environmental Management Team, which
is composed of employees from across the Corporation who have an interest in
environmental issues, and with the Sustainable Development Committee, an advisory
group composed of interested citizens. During the report’s development, the HGS
consulted informally with the lawn care industry and local community groups. The HGS
plans to convene a formal public meeting in the spring to discuss the policy options
presented in the report.
The three policy options presented in the report are: 1) the regulatory option with many
variations on the theme, 2) education and outreach, and 3) to lobby provincial and
federal governments for improved regulatory controls.
Waterloo Region
The Community Services Committee (Board of Health) in Waterloo Region has
instructed staff from Community Health to meet with representatives from the
seven municipalities (3 cities and 4 townships) within the Region to develop
Terms of Reference for reducing or possibly regulating cosmetic pesticide use.
The Terms of Reference are to be submitted to the seven respective Municipal
Councils for direction. As of February 2002, only the City of Cambridge had
expressed interest in exploring a by-law to restrict the cosmetic use of
pesticides on private property.
A September 2001 staff report prepared for the Community Services
Committee in Waterloo indicates that the Region, which has been established
by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, does not have the broad powers
to pass by-laws that local municipalities do under section 102 of the Ontario
Municipal Act. The Region would have to use section 13 of the Health
27. 27
Protection & Promotion Act if it wanted to regulate the use of pesticides, and
this would require clear evidence that pesticides “have or are likely to have an
adverse effect” on any person. Staff have concluded that the local
municipalities in Waterloo Region are in a better position to regulate pesticides
than is the Regional Municipality.
In Waterloo, the next steps may include developing an integrated educational
campaign, conducting a community wide survey to determine the level of public
support for a pesticides by-law, and/or developing a community consultation
process for stakeholder input and by-law creation.