1. A by-law to protect
public health and the Environment BY PHASING-OUT THE COSMETIC use of
pesticides RèGLEMENT VISANT à PROTéGER LA SANTé PUBLIQUE ET
L’ENVIRONNEMENT PAR L’éLIMINATION PROGRESSIVE DE L’UTILISATION DES PESTICIDES
à DES FINS ESTHéTIQUES |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council :
1.
Enact the by-law attached as Document 2 in order to protect human
health and the environment by restricting the application of pesticides in the
urban area to essential uses, including the following provisions:
(a)
a
general prohibition on cosmetic use of pesticides, including use on lawns;
(b)
exception
for agriculture, golf courses and other essential non-cosmetic uses;
(c)
allow
the treatment of infestations on lawns;
(d)
an effective date
of January 1, 2006.
2. Refer the development of guidelines for the conditions
under which an infestation could be treated with pesticides and the process of
considering requests that would allow such treatment to an advisory panel, to
report to HRSS Committee.
3. Approve an implementation strategy that
includes the following:
a)
education of the public on the by-law in 2006;
b)
warnings during the first half of 2007; and
c)
charges as appropriate after July 1, 2007.
4. Approve
that staff be directed to initiate discussions with the Institute of
Environment at the University of Ottawa as well as other relevant scientific
and technical stakeholders to explore the viability of designing a more
comprehensive methodology beyond opinion polls, that would enable the
monitoring of the successfulness of the pesticide reduction program, and report
back to Committee and Council by April 2006 on the scope and cost of such an
undertaking.
RECOMMANDATIONS MODIFIÉES DU
COMITÉ
Que le Conseil :
1.
Adopte le règlement formant le
document 2 afin de protéger la santé humaine et l’environnement en
limitant l’application de pesticides dans la zone urbaine aux utilisations
essentielles, ce règlement incluant les dispositions suivantes :
a)
interdiction générale de
l’utilisation de pesticides à des fins esthétiques, notamment sur les pelouses;
b)
sont
exemptés les terres agricoles, les terrains de golf et les autres endroits où
un usage non esthétique est essentiel;
c)
autorisation du traitement des
infestations des pelouses;
d)
entrée en vigueur : le 1er
janvier 2006.
2. Confie
l’élaboration de lignes directrices relatives aux conditions dans lesquelles
une infestation peut être traitée au moyen de pesticides, ainsi que le
processus d’examen des demandes connexes, à un comité consultatif relevant du
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux.
3. Approuve
une stratégie de mise en œuvre qui comprenne les éléments suivants :
a)
éducation du public sur le règlement
en 2006;
b)
avertissements pendant le premier
semestre de 2007;
c)
imposition de frais, s’il y a lieu, après
le 1er juillet 2007.
4. Approuve que le personnel reçoive
instruction d’amorcer des discussions avec l’Institut de l’environnement de
l’Université d’Ottawa, ainsi qu’avec d’autres intéressés des domaines
scientifique et technique, afin d’examiner la viabilité d’un projet visant à
élaborer une méthode plus complète que les sondages d’opinion, qui permettrait
de surveiller l’efficacité du programme de réduction des pesticides; et de
présenter au Comité et au Conseil, d’ici avril 2006, un rapport sur la portée
et les coûts d’un tel projet.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Managers, Planning and Growth Management, and
Community and Protective Services report dated 13 October 2005 (ACS2005-PGM-POL-0058).
2.
Extract of Draft Minutes, 20 and
21 October 2005 will be distributed prior to Council.
Report to/Rapport au :
Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et
des services sociaux
and Council / et au Conseil
13 October 2005 / le 13 octobre 2005
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
And / et
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur
municipal adjoint,
Community and Protective
Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Dr. David
Salisbury, Medical Officer of Health
And / et
Dennis Jacobs, Director/Directeur
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x, 25521
|
SUBJECT: |
A by-law to protect public health and the Environment BY PHASING-OUT THE COSMETIC use of pesticides |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
||
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council:
1.
Enact the by-law attached as Document 2 in order to protect human
health and the environment by restricting the application of pesticides in the
urban area to essential uses, including the following provisions:
a)
a general prohibition on cosmetic use of pesticides, including use
on lawns;
b)
exceptions for agriculture, golf courses and other non-cosmetic
uses;
c)
allow the treatment of infestations on lawns, without a permit;
d)
an effective date of January 1, 2006;
2.
Consider the following options
if Recommendation 1 is approved:
a)
require a permit for the treatment of infestations;
b)
refer the development of guidelines for the conditions under which
an infestation could be treated with pesticides to an advisory panel;
c)
require a buffer zone when pesticides are applied in golf courses;
d)
change the effective date to January 1, 2007.
3.
If Recommendation 1 is not approved, consider enacting
a by-law as outlined in Document 5, which regulates the use of pesticides in the
urban area of the City and includes the following provisions:
a)
pesticide-free periods;
b)
signage requirements;
c)
spot application requirement;
d)
buffer zones;
e)
restrictions based on weather;
f)
treatment of infestations despite the conditions in
(a) and (c), with notification;
g)
an effective date of January 1, 2006.
4.
Approve an implementation strategy that includes the following:
a)
education of the public on the by-law in 2006;
b)
warnings during the first half of 2007; and
c)
charges as appropriate after July 1, 2007.
5.
Consider the following options for a different implementation
strategy than outlined in Recommendation 4:
a)
education and warnings in 2006, and charges as appropriate starting
in 2007; or
b)
education in 2006, warnings in 2007, and charges as appropriate
starting in 2008.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de la
santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil :
1.
D’adopter le règlement formant le
document 2 afin de protéger la santé humaine et l’environnement en
limitant l’application de pesticides dans la zone urbaine aux utilisations
essentielles, ce règlement incluant les dispositions suivantes :
a)
interdiction générale de
l’utilisation de pesticides à des fins esthétiques, notamment sur les pelouses;
b)
exceptions à des fins agricoles,
pour les terrains de golf et dans le cas d’autres utilisations qui ne sont pas
à des fins esthétiques;
c)
autorisation du traitement des
infestations des pelouses, sans permis;
d)
entrée en vigueur : le 1er
janvier 2006.
2.
De considérer les possibilités
suivantes si la recommandation 1 est approuvée :
a)
exiger un permis pour le traitement
des infestations;
b)
confier à un groupe
d’experts-conseils l’élaboration de lignes directrices en ce qui concerne les
conditions dans lesquelles une infestation pourrait être traitée avec des
pesticides;
c)
exiger l’établissement d’une
zone tampon lorsque des pesticides sont utilisés sur des terrains de golf;
d)
reporter la date d’entrée en vigueur
au 1er janvier 2007.
3.
Si la
recommandation 1 n’est pas approuvée, de considérer l’adoption du règlement
formant le document 5, qui régit l’utilisation de pesticides dans la zone
urbaine de la ville et comprend des dispositions portant sur les éléments
suivants :
a)
périodes où
l’utilisation de pesticides est interdite;
b)
exigences en matière de
signalisation;
c)
applications
ponctuelles;
d)
zones tampons;
e)
restrictions fondées sur
les conditions météorologiques;
f)
traitement des
infestations malgré les conditions prévues en a) et c), moyennant notification;
g)
entrée en vigueur :
le 1er janvier 2006.
4.
D’approuver une stratégie de mise en
œuvre qui comprenne les éléments suivants :
a)
éducation du public sur le règlement
en 2006;
b)
avertissements pendant le premier
semestre de 2007;
c)
imposition de frais, s’il y a lieu,
après le 1er juillet 2007.
5.
De considérer les possibilités
suivantes s’il convient d’adopter une stratégie de mise en œuvre différente de
celle décrite dans la recommandation 4 :
a)
éducation et avertissements en 2006,
et imposition de frais, s’il y a lieu, à compter de
2007; ou
b)
éducation en 2006, avertissements en
2007 et imposition de frais, s’il y a lieu, à compter
de 2008.
In recent years,
regulating the non-essential use of pesticides on public and private property
has become an important issue in municipalities across Canada. This is mainly because a growing number of
physicians are expressing concerns about evolving scientific evidence showing
negative health and environmental effects of pesticide use, particularly for
pregnant women, children and seniors.
The City of Ottawa first took action several years ago by eliminating the cosmetic use of pesticides on City property. As the health and environmental risks related to non-essential use of pesticides on private property moved to the forefront, and nine Canadian cities banned their use, Ottawa City Council in 2002 directed a three-year public education campaign with ambitious targets for pesticide use reduction.
Between 2002 and 2005, while the City’s public education campaign was underway, scientific evidence and community expectations continued to evolve.
Better information on the medical effects of pesticides was becoming available, and by the summer of 2005, Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health decided to formally recommend a by-law prohibiting the non-essential use of pesticides. The Medical Officer of Health had reached the conclusion that the evidence linking pesticides with serious health problems for children, pregnant women, seniors and other vulnerable residents, had crossed the threshold to warrant stronger action than education alone. Many health experts, including the Board of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Dr. Jack Kitts – Chief Executive Officer of The Ottawa Hospital, Dr. Hartley S. Stern – Vice President, The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Clinic, and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, had reached the same conclusion. The following extracts from reports and letters, referenced later in this report, are indicative of the views of these medical professionals:
Aggregate scientific evidence and the precautionary principle support the need for a cosmetic pesticide prohibition in Ottawa. While the City's three-year pesticide education strategy has been helpful, it has not resulted in adequate reduction of cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens. (Report of Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health)
[T]he evidence is persuasive that the greater susceptibility of pregnant women and foetuses, infants, children and the elderly justifies prudent avoidance and precautionary reasons to limit unnecessary exposure to pesticides for these vulnerable subpopulations. (Dr. Sheela Basrur, Former Toronto Medical Officer of Health, now Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario)
Although not entirely definitive, numerous international and medical studies have demonstrated a relationship between pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease, birth defects and cancer. […] With strong public support for a cosmetic pesticide phase-out, there seems little justification for the City of Ottawa to delay on this important issue, especially since healthy alternatives to pesticides exist. (Dr. Jack Kitts, Chief Executive Officer, The Ottawa Hospital)
In total, 63 studies have examined pesticides and childhood illnesses; 55 demonstrate a probable or possible link. […] To me when I thought about this as a doctor, as a scientist and as the parent of a five-year old, this was a no-brainer. Even a small risk of harm to children is unacceptable just to spare our lawns from a few weeds. (Dr. Robin Walker, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa; Neonatologist at CHEO)
Non-essential pesticide use has no health benefit, and may pose a risk to human health. The Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the risks that these toxic chemicals pose to the health and safety of Ottawa residents, especially to children and outdoor workers who are involuntarily exposed to these chemicals. (Canadian Cancer Society)
I therefore urge City Council to adopt the “precautionary principle” and enact a pesticide by law similar to those already in place in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. Rest assured the medical community, as a whole will support it. (Dr. Hartley Stern, Vice President, The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Clinic)
The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario supports the phasing-out of the cosmetic use of pesticides in the City of Ottawa. (Garry Cardiff and CHEO Board of Trustees)
As evidence for health risks was growing, environmental evidence also mounted that pesticides are often conveyed beyond the locations where they are applied and that they harm species other than the targeted pest, including household pets and local wildlife, through exposure to contaminated surface and ground water, soil, vegetation and air.
Since 2002 the number of Canadian municipalities with by-laws restricting pesticide use on private property grew from nine to seventy. Canada’s biggest cities, including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, joined what had been a small-city movement.
In 2004, as part of its regular quarterly survey of Ottawa residents, Decima Research asked two questions about attitudes towards pesticides on behalf of Ottawa Public Health. The results showed that 71% of Ottawa residents believe chemical pesticides pose a moderate or significant hazard to human health. As well, 62% of Ottawa residents would support a by-law to eliminate non-essential pesticide use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many residents are now more accepting of something less than the perfect lawn that was the ideal until very recently.
The position of many stakeholders has evolved with public expectations and the medical evidence. Over the past few years the City has made progress in forming a working partnership with golf courses to explore pesticide use reduction opportunities. Staff also met recently with representatives of the rural part of the city and the lawn-care industry.
The City of Ottawa has tried harder than many cities to reduce the use of pesticides without regulation. The fact that the aggressive, three-year education campaign begun in 2002 did not produce an actual reduction in the non-essential use of pesticides suggests that a change in behaviour will likely require the strong message about health and the environment that a by-law sends. A study of experiences in other cities confirms this suggestion that only the combination of education and a by-law can deliver significant reductions in pesticide use.[1]
In 2002, Council directed staff to prepare a by-law should public education alone fail to sufficiently reduce the cosmetic use of pesticides. The proposed by-law, described in Recommendation 1, is based on Council’s direction and an analysis of by-laws from across the country. It reflects the advice of the Medical Officer of Health and other medical professionals, such as those from CHEO, that a general prohibition on cosmetic pesticides would protect the health of residents, particularly vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women and seniors, as well as protect drinking water and residents’ pets. The recommended by-law sends a clear message about the cosmetic use of pesticides.
Staff has also provided a number of possible options for modifications to some details of the proposed by-law, while preserving its essential character. These options are described in Recommendation 2.
Should Council wish to consider an alternative regulatory framework, Recommendation 3 provides an alternative by-law approach, which regulates but does not ban the use of pesticides. Staff believes that it is unlikely that this approach would be any more effective than the 3-year public education campaign because it fails to deliver a clear message about the cosmetic use of pesticides, and it would be more costly to enforce.
Recommendation 4 outlines the preferred approach to implementation of a by-law. Recommendation 5 provides several options for modifying the preferred implementation strategy.
RÉSUMÉ
Ces dernières années, la réglementation de
l’utilisation non essentielle de pesticides sur les terrains publics et privés
est devenue un important dossier pour les municipalités du Canada. Ce phénomène
découle principalement du fait que les données scientifiques sur les effets
nocifs des pesticides sur la santé et l’environnement, en particulier la santé
des femmes enceintes, des enfants et des personnes âgées, inquiètent un nombre
croissant de médecins.
La Ville d’Ottawa est passée à l’action il y a
quelques années en éliminant l’utilisation non essentielle de pesticides sur
ses terrains. Les risques pour la santé et l’environnement liés à l’utilisation
non essentielle de pesticides sur les terrains privés sont passés à
l’avant-scène, et neuf administrations municipales canadiennes ont banni
l’utilisation de pesticides. En 2002, le Conseil municipal d’Ottawa a entrepris
une campagne d’éducation du public de trois ans assortie d’objectifs ambitieux
de réduction de l’utilisation de pesticides.
De 2002 à 2005, pendant la campagne d’éducation
du public de la Ville, les données scientifiques et les attentes de la
collectivité ont continué d’évoluer.
Les renseignements sur les effets des
pesticides sur la santé étant de plus en plus fouillés, à l’été 2005, le
médecin chef en santé publique de la Ville d’Ottawa a décidé de recommander
officiellement l’adoption d’un règlement interdisant l’utilisation non essentielle
de pesticides. Il en était arrivé à la conclusion que les données liant les
pesticides à de graves problèmes de santé dont souffrent les enfants, les
femmes enceintes, les personnes âgées et d’autres résidents vulnérables avaient
atteint un seuil qui justifiait l’adoption de mesures plus rigoureuses que la
seule éducation. Un grand nombre de spécialistes de la santé, y compris le
conseil d’administration du Centre hospitalier pour enfants de l’est de
l’Ontario (CHEO), Dr Jack Kitts, président-directeur général,
Hôpital d’Ottawa, Dr Hartley Stern, vice-président, Centre
régional de cancérologie de l’Hôpital d’Ottawa et les membres de l’Ontario
College of Family Physicians, avaient tiré la même conclusion. Les extraits de
rapports et de lettres suivants, auxquels on renvoie plus loin dans le présent
rapport, illustrent l’opinion de ces professionnels de la santé.
Un ensemble de preuves scientifiques
et le principe de la prudence justifient la nécessité d’interdire l’utilisation
de pesticides à des fins esthétiques à Ottawa. Bien que la stratégie
d’éducation du public de la Ville se soit avérée utile, elle n’a pas donné lieu
à une réduction suffisante de l’utilisation de pesticides à des fins
esthétiques sur les pelouses et dans les jardins. (Rapport du médecin chef en
santé publique d’Ottawa)
Les données sont convaincantes. La
susceptibilité supérieure des femmes enceintes, des fœtus, des bébés, des
enfants et des personnes âgées nous incitent à faire preuve de prudence et à
limiter les expositions non nécessaires aux pesticides pour ces
sous-populations vulnérables. (Dre Sheela Basrur, ancienne médecin
chef en santé publique de Toronto, maintenant médecin hygiéniste en chef de
l’Ontario)
Bien qu’elles ne soient pas
entièrement terminées, de nombreuses études médicales et internationales
montrent qu’il existe un lien entre l’utilisation de pesticides et la maladie
de Parkinson, les anomalies congénitales et le cancer. […] Le public ayant
indiqué qu’il appuyait fermement l’élimination progressive de l’utilisation de
pesticides à des fins esthétiques, il semble peu justifié que la Ville d’Ottawa
retarde les interventions dans cet important dossier, d’autant plus qu’il
existe de saines solutions de rechange aux pesticides. (Dr Jack
Kitts, président-directeur général, Hôpital d’Ottawa)
Au total, 63 études ont porté sur
les pesticides et les maladies d’enfance; 55 ont démontré qu’il existait un
lien probable ou possible entre ces produits et ces maladies. […] Pour moi qui
suis médecin, scientifique et père d’un enfant de cinq ans, la question ne se
pose même pas. Il est inadmissible d’exposer des enfants à des risques, si
minimes soient-ils, pour éviter de retrouver quelques mauvaises herbes dans nos
pelouses. (Dr Robin Walker, professeur de pédiatrie, Université
d’Ottawa; néonatologiste au CHEO)
L’utilisation non essentielle de
pesticides ne comporte aucun avantage pour la santé et pourrait même poser des
risques pour la santé humaine. La Société canadienne du cancer est préoccupée
par les risques que ces produits chimiques toxiques présentent pour la santé et
la sécurité des résidents d’Ottawa, en particulier pour les enfants et les
personnes travaillant à l’extérieur, qui s’exposent involontairement à de tels
produits. (Société canadienne du cancer)
Par conséquent, j’exhorte le Conseil
municipal à observer le principe de la prudence et à adopter un règlement sur
l’utilisation de pesticides semblable aux règlements déjà en vigueur à Halifax,
à Montréal et à Toronto. Il ne fait nul doute que l’ensemble de la communauté
médicale appuiera ce règlement. (Dr Hartley Stern,
vice-président, Centre régional de cancérologie de l’Hôpital d’Ottawa)
Le Centre hospitalier pour enfants
de l’est de l’Ontario appuie l’élimination progressive de l’utilisation de
pesticides à des fins esthétiques dans la ville d’Ottawa. (Garry Cardiff et le
conseil d’administration du CHEO)
À mesure qu’augmentait le nombre de données sur
les risques que pose l’utilisation de pesticides pour la santé, on obtenait
aussi de plus en plus de preuves que les pesticides se répandent souvent au
delà des endroits où ils ont été appliqués et qu’ils nuisent à des espèces
autres que celles visées, y compris les animaux domestiques et la faune locale,
par une exposition à de l’eau de surface, de l’eau souterraine, de la terre,
des plantes et de l’air contaminés.
Depuis 2002, le nombre de municipalités canadiennes ayant
adopté des règlements limitant l’utilisation de pesticides sur les terrains
privés est passé de neuf à soixante-dix. Les plus grandes municipalités du
Canada, notamment Montréal, Toronto et Vancouver, se sont jointes à ce qui
avait été un mouvement de petites villes.
En 2004, dans le cadre de son enquête
trimestrielle régulière auprès des résidents d’Ottawa, la société Decima
Research a posé, au nom de la Direction de la santé publique d’Ottawa, deux
questions sur les attitudes à l’égard des pesticides. Les résultats obtenus ont
montré que 71 % des résidents d’Ottawa estiment que les pesticides
chimiques posent un risque moyen ou important pour la santé humaine. En outre,
62 % appuieraient un règlement visant l’élimination de l’utilisation non
essentielle de pesticides. Des renseignements non scientifiques donnent à
penser qu’un grand nombre de résidents sont maintenant plus disposés à accepter une pelouse non parfaite, alors que la
pelouse parfaite constituait un idéal à atteindre jusqu’à tout récemment.
La position de nombreux intervenants a évolué
au rythme des attentes du public et des preuves médicales. Ces dernières
années, la Ville a fait des progrès en constituant un partenariat de travail
avec des administrations de terrains de golf afin d’examiner les possibilités
de réduction de l’utilisation de pesticides. Récemment,
le personnel a également rencontré des représentants de la zone rurale
de la ville et de l’industrie de l’entretien des pelouses.
La Ville d’Ottawa a déployé plus d’efforts que
beaucoup d’autres villes pour réduire l’utilisation de pesticides sans avoir
recours à un règlement. Le fait que la dynamique campagne d’éducation de trois
ans entreprise en 2002 ne s’est pas traduite par une réelle réduction de
l’utilisation non essentielle de pesticides laisse supposer que, pour changer
les comportements, il faudra le message non équivoque sur la santé et
l’environnement que peut véhiculer un règlement. Une étude de l’expérience
d’autres villes confirme que seule la combinaison de l’éducation et d’un
règlement peut entraîner une importante réduction de l’utilisation de
pesticides.[2]
En 2002, le Conseil a demandé au personnel de
rédiger un règlement au cas où, par la seule éducation du public, on
n’arriverait pas à réduire suffisamment l’utilisation de pesticides à des fins
esthétiques. Décrit dans la recommandation 1, le projet de règlement est
fondé sur la directive donnée par le Conseil et sur une analyse de règlements
sur la question adoptés ailleurs au pays. Il reflète l’avis du médecin chef en
santé publique et celui d’autres professionnels de la santé, notamment ceux du
CHEO, selon lesquels une interdiction générale de l’utilisation de pesticides à
des fins esthétiques protégerait la santé des résidents, en particulier des
groupes vulnérables, tels que les enfants, les femmes enceintes et les
personnes âgées, ainsi que l’eau potable et les animaux domestiques. Ce projet
de règlement envoie un message clair quant à l’utilisation de pesticides à des
fins esthétiques.
Le personnel a aussi formulé un certain nombre
de modifications qui pourraient être apportées au règlement, tout en préservant
ses points essentiels. Ces modifications sont décrites dans la
recommandation 2.
La recommandation 3
fournit un règlement de rechange, au cas où le Conseil envisagerait un autre
cadre de réglementation. Le personnel estime toutefois peu probable qu’une
telle démarche soit plus efficace que la campagne d’éducation du public de
trois ans. En outre, il n’enverrait pas de message clair sur l’utilisation de
pesticides à des fins esthétiques et serait difficile à appliquer.
La recommandation 4
décrit la démarche privilégiée en vue de la mise en œuvre du règlement. La
recommandation 5 présente plusieurs possibilités en ce qui concerne la
stratégie de mise en œuvre.
BACKGROUND
In recent years,
regulating the non-essential use of pesticides on public and private property
has become an important issue in municipalities across Canada. This is mainly because a growing number of
physicians are expressing concerns about the evolving scientific evidence about
the negative health and environmental effect of pesticide use, particularly for
pregnant women, children and seniors.
The City of Ottawa first took action several years ago by eliminating the cosmetic use of pesticides on City property. As the health and environmental risks related to non-essential use of pesticides on private property moved to the forefront, and nine Canadian cities banned their use, Ottawa City Council in 2002 directed a three-year public education campaign with ambitious targets for pesticide use reduction.
The 2002 direction provides as follows:
That Council
adopt the following approach for long-term reduction of the cosmetic use of
pesticides on private property:
Whereas staff have presented a report recommending
an education approach to the reduction of cosmetic pesticide use on exterior
private property in Ottawa;
And whereas the
staff report has also recommended that, if established pesticide
reduction targets have not been met by the end of 2005, a by-law will be a key
component of any further reduction program;
And whereas the public has clearly indicated its
support for such a by-law;
Therefore be it
resolved that, if the following targets for cosmetic pesticide use have not
been met by the end of September 2005:
That staff be
directed to prepare a by-law to be adopted by the end of 2005; and that such a
by-law incorporate the following principles:
i.
Agriculture and forestry
ii. Public
and private swimming pools
iii. Purifying
of water for human and animal consumption
iv. Lowest
toxicity pesticides for protection of public health and safety
v. Infestations
where a temporary pesticide application permit has been issued by the City
vi. Indoor
use
Pursuant to the foregoing direction, staff
conducted an aggressive three-year public education campaign, which ended in
the Fall of 2005.
Through over 250 workshops and seminars,
brochures, information sheets, advertising, a comprehensive website, and a
telephone hotline, information was provided on the hazards of pesticide use and
the alternatives to chemical pesticides for maintaining lawns and gardens.
Despite these aggressive efforts, Council’s
reduction targets have not been achieved by education alone. A survey conducted by Decima Research in the
Fall of 2005 found that, between Fall 2003 and Fall 2005, there was no
significant reduction in the percentage of households that used chemical
pesticides to maintain their lawns or gardens.
In 2003, a total of 54% of households with lawns or gardens used
pesticides; in 2005 the figure was 53%.
(In 2005, this 53% was split between 30% of households that knowingly
use pesticides and another 23% that use pesticides but do not acknowledge it.)
Local universities, colleges, school boards
and hospitals do not use pesticides for cosmetic purposes. Daycare facilities and private schools are
very close to 100% reduction (98% and 95% respectively). However, 27% of long-term care facilities
and seniors’ residences still use pesticides for cosmetic purposes.
No 2003 baseline data was collected on
cosmetic pesticide use in the remaining non-residential sector. The limited data for 2005 indicate that only
15% of commercial and industrial properties are maintained without the use of
pesticides.
The 2005 annual report on this campaign,
which provides details on the campaign activities, and the topline results of
the 2005 Decima survey on pesticide use were provided to City Council under
separate cover and are on file with the City Clerk.
DISCUSSION
While the City’s public education campaign was underway, better information on the medical effects of pesticides was becoming available, and by the summer of 2005 Ottawa’s Medical Officer of Health decided to formally recommend a by-law prohibiting the non-essential use of pesticides. The Medical Officer of Health had reached the conclusion that the evidence linking pesticides with serious health problems for children, pregnant women, seniors and other vulnerable residents had crossed the threshold to warrant stronger action than education alone.
In a memo dated August 19, 2005, Update from Medical Officer of Health on Cosmetic Use of Pesticides (attached as Document 1), the Medical Officer of Health provides a survey of the latest scientific evidence. He observes that the medical evidence indicating potential links between pesticide use and risks to human health has continued to accumulate. These risks include certain forms of cancer, neuro-cognitive effects and reproductive effects. In concluding his report, the Medical Officer of Health recommends and supports a by-law to prohibit the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns and gardens:
Aggregate scientific evidence and the precautionary principle support the need for a cosmetic pesticide prohibition in Ottawa. While the City's three-year pesticide education strategy has been helpful, it has not resulted in adequate reduction of cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and gardens.
Former Toronto Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur, now Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario, wrote an in-depth report in 2002 following a review of the scientific literature entitled Lawn and Garden Pesticides: A Review of Human Exposure and Health Effects Research. The Toronto analysis concluded:
[T]he evidence is persuasive that the greater susceptibility of pregnant women and foetuses, infants, children and the elderly justifies prudent avoidance and precautionary reasons to limit unnecessary exposure to pesticides for these vulnerable subpopulations.
Many physicians, health experts and health associations, including the following, had reached similar conclusions:
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Ottawa
The following extracts from reports and letters received from these medical professionals, and attached as Document 3, are indicative of their views:
Although not entirely definitive, numerous international and medical studies have demonstrated a relationship between pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease, birth defects and cancer. With strong public support for a cosmetic pesticide phase-out, there seems little justification for the City of Ottawa to delay on this important issue, especially since healthy alternatives to pesticides exist. (Dr. Jack Kitts, Chief Executive Officer, The Ottawa Hospital)
CHEO sees about 20 new cases/year of acute lymphocytic leukemia (A.L.L.). The methodologically excellent and comprehensive systematic review from the Ontario College of Family Physicians lists 4 studies examining the possibility of an increased risk of childhood A.L.L. with pesticide exposure; all are positive. Another 4 studies looked at childhood brain cancer and pesticides; again all 4 are positive. In total, 63 studies have examined pesticides and childhood illnesses; 55 demonstrate a probable or possible link. To me when I thought about this as a doctor, as a scientist and as the parent of a five-year old, this was a no-brainer. Even a small risk of harm to children is unacceptable just to spare our lawns from a few weeds. (Dr. Robin Walker, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa; Neonatologist at CHEO)
Non-essential pesticide use has no health benefit, and may pose a risk to human health. The Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the risks that these toxic chemicals pose to the health and safety of Ottawa residents, especially to children and outdoor workers who are involuntarily exposed to these chemicals. (Canadian Cancer Society)
I am particularly concerned about evidence linking pesticide exposure to leukemia and other malignancies including prostrate cancer, the most common cancer among Canadian men. […] I therefore urge City Council to adopt the “precautionary principle” and enact a pesticide by law similar to those already in place in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. Rest assured the medical community, as a whole will support it. (Dr. Hartley Stern, Vice President, The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Clinic)
The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario supports the phasing-out of the cosmetic use of pesticides in the City of Ottawa. (Garry Cardiff and CHEO Board of Trustees)
In recent years it has become clear from case control and epidemiologic studies that pesticides have a negative impact on human reproduction. […] I implore you to take a strong stand in support of a city bylaw that puts a stop to pesticide use for cosmetic purposes in the city of Ottawa. (Dr. Paul Claman - Director, In-Vitro Fertilization Clinic, Ottawa Hospital; Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Ottawa)
There is increasing evidence that pesticides are often conveyed beyond the locations where they are applied and that they harm species other than the targeted pest, including household pets and local wildlife, through exposure to contaminated surface and ground water, soil, vegetation and air. Veterinarians and animal hospitals in Ottawa, the Ottawa Humane Society and the Humane Society of Canada have all written in support of a by-law to restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides. Their submissions are in Document 4.
The cumulative environmental effect of all the chemicals we use and emit through human activity cannot be adequately modelled. With the increase in scientific evidence suggesting links between pesticide use and human and environmental effects, it would be prudent to take steps to improve the health of our ecosystem through prohibiting the non-essential use of pesticides.
A by-law to prohibit the non-essential use of pesticides within defined areas of the City will contribute significantly and positively to removing unnecessary contaminants from our ecosystem and to the health of soil, water, air, humans and other species, and will improve the interactions amongst species within our City’s natural systems, working towards a balanced and healthy local ecosystem.
The proposed by-law would also meet three of the City’s environmental commitments within the Environmental Strategy, approved by Council in 2003, specifically:
· Demonstrate leadership in environmental management;
· Represent an ecosystem management approach that reduces stresses on our natural systems; and
· Incorporate environmental considerations into policy that guides our community’s activities.
While Ottawa’s public education campaign was underway, the number of Canadian municipalities with by-laws restricting pesticide use on private property grew from nine to seventy. Canada’s biggest cities, including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, joined what had been a small-city movement. The Province of Quebec has a ban in place, and many other municipalities are in the process of considering the enactment of a by-law.
This move to
complement education with regulation arose as it became evident that public
education campaigns alone failed to significantly reduce pesticide use, except
in the institutional
sector. A recent study of the impact of
public education campaigns and regulations on pesticide use in other
jurisdictions found that only the combination of public education with a by-law
can achieve significant reductions.1
Ottawa is in a
good position to learn from the by-laws these seventy cities have put in place,
although many are just beginning enforcement after completing an education
phase about their by-law. Staff studied
the by-laws being used in Ontario municipalities and with one exception, all
ban the cosmetic use of pesticides.
Almost all contain a general
prohibition on the use of pesticides that applies to the entire municipality,
with exemptions for certain activities under certain circumstances. The exemptions are for uses that most can
agree are non-cosmetic or essential, such as golf courses, agriculture and
extermination of rodents. Most by-laws
also permit the use of some low-toxicity, non-persistent types of pesticides,
such as biological control agents.
The issue of infestations, by both insects and weeds, is addressed in most of the by-laws, although there is no consistent approach. Some municipalities use a broad exemption that covers both insects and weeds, and others exempt only insect infestations. Some municipalities require a temporary permit to deal with the infestation; others do not. Some require notification of the municipality after the pesticide has been applied, in place of a permit. Some require confirmation of the infestation by City staff or a third party; others simply set guidelines which homeowners interpret. Some require signs to be posted and notification of neighbours whenever pesticides are applied. The cost of the permits ranged from $10 to $25.
In 2004, as part of its regular quarterly survey of Ottawa residents, Decima Research asked two questions about attitudes towards pesticides on behalf of Ottawa Public Health[3]. The results, distributed separately to Council, showed that 71% of Ottawa residents believe chemical pesticides pose a moderate or significant hazard to human health. As well, 62% of Ottawa residents would support a by-law to eliminate non-essential pesticide use.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that many residents are now more accepting of something less than the perfect lawn that was the ideal until very recently.
In addition to the survey, the City has recently received numerous communications from residents, academics, organizations and agencies within the community, listed below, demonstrating support for a by-law phasing out the non-essential use of pesticides in Ottawa. This correspondence is attached as Document 4.
Animal Health Professionals and
Associations:
· Dr. Elke Bibby - Veterinarian
· Dr. Robert Ostrowski - Veterinarian
· Dr. Eddy Beltran - Veterinarian, Blair Animal Hospital
· Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind
· Canadian Honey Council
· Humane Society of Canada
· Orleans Veterinary Hospital
· Ottawa Humane Society
· Queensway West Animal Hospital
Wildlife and Environmental
Associations:
·
Kanata
Environmental Network
· Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre
· Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club
· Ottawa Riverkeeper
· Pollution Probe
· Wild Bird Care Centre
· Centretown Community Health Centre, Board of Directors
· Lowertown Community Resource Centre, Board of Directors
· Orleans Cumberland Community Resource Centre, Board of Directors
· Overbrook-Forbes Community Resource Centre, Board of Directors
· Pinecrest-Queensway Health & Community Services, Board of Directors
· Sandy Hill Community Health Centre
· Somerset West Community Health Centre, Board of Directors
· South East Ottawa Centre for a Healthy Community, Board of Directors
· Vanier Community Service Centre, Board of Directors
· Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre, Board of Directors
Academia:
· David Suzuki - Professor Emeritus, Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia
· Tammy J. Clifford, PhD - Director, Epidemiology, Chalmers Research Group Investigator, CHEO Research Institute; Assistant Professor, Departments of Paediatrics and Epidemiology & Community Medicine, University of Ottawa
· C. Scott Findlay - Director, Institute of the Environment, University of Ottawa
· David Currie, Professor and Department Chair, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Jules Blais - Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Chemical and Environmental Toxicology Program, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Vance L. Trudeau - Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Bernard Philogene - Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· John Arnason - Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· David Lean - Professor of Ecotoxicology, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Antoine Morin - Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Dr. Francis Pick - Professor and Director of Environmental Studies Program, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa
· Bridget Stutchbury - Canada Research Chair in Ecology and Conservation Biology
· Action Sandy Hill
· Canadian Organic Growers, Ottawa Chapter
· Go Manor Park
· Hunt Club Community Association
· Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
· Ottawa Carleton Elementary Teachers’ Federation Council representatives and members
· The Ottawa Garden Club
· The Rockliffe Park Garden Club
·
Union of Child Care Workers of Eastern
Ontario
Individuals:
· Gail Moorhead
·
Katharine A.
Mason
·
Michele White
·
Cristina
Santos
·
Barbara
Muller
·
Cathie
Soublier
·
Margaret
Phillips
·
Momir
Partalo
·
Eldrad Ulthran
·
Danielle Frigault
·
Tammy Topalski
· M. Murphy
·
Glen Peacock
·
Jenna Morris
·
Melanie Ransom
·
Kathleen
LeValliant
·
Judy Brown
·
Irfona
Larkin
·
François
F. Savard
·
Mike Christie
·
K.
Jean Cottam
·
Anne
McCallum
· Angela Hayward
· Cheryl Mulvihill
·
Fran Mowbray
·
Lori Legge
· Nancy Boland
· Deidre Gallagher
· Sarah Hubbard
· Janey Hitchcock
· Barbara O’Brien
· J. Alan Evans
In 2002, Council directed staff to prepare a by-law should public education alone fail to sufficiently reduce the cosmetic use of pesticides. The proposed by-law, described in Recommendation 1, and attached as Document 2, while informed by an analysis of by-laws from across Ontario, is largely based on Toronto’s by-law and Council’s direction. It reflects the advice of the Medical Officer of Health and other medical professionals, such as those from CHEO, that a general prohibition on cosmetic pesticides would protect the health of residents, particularly vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women and seniors, as well as protect drinking water and resident’s pets. The recommended by-law sends a clear message about the cosmetic use of pesticides.
Section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001
provides that municipalities may regulate matters for purposes related to the
health, safety and well-being of the inhabitants of the municipality. The authority of municipalities in Ontario
to regulate pesticide use was upheld in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal
decision concerning Toronto’s pesticide by-law.
Ottawa’s proposed by-law is substantially similar to Toronto’s, except:
a) The by-law does not apply to the rural area. Because of the unique character of the rural area, discussion of any potential application of the by-law to the rural area at a future time has been referred to the Rural Summit.
b) Agricultural activities are exempted in Ottawa;
c) Golf courses and bowling greens are explicitly exempted in Ottawa. Over the past few years the City has made progress in forming a working partnership with golf courses to explore pesticide use reduction opportunities. Ottawa’s proposed by-law recognizes this partnership by exempting golf courses with the condition that they provide annual reports on strategies to reduce pesticide use, and use licensed applicators. Montreal’s by-law includes a similar provision.
d) Certain conditions are attached to the application of pesticides in Ottawa, such as notification to the City, signage and buffer zones, to better protect neighbours and vulnerable populations, such as children, and to ensure a level playing field;
e) Lawn care companies and households are treated the same in Ottawa’s by-law. The lawn care industry indicated that a level playing field, both for signage and the implementation strategy, was critical.
The proposed by-law is consistent with Council’s direction in 2002, except that neither a permit nor confirmation by the City would be required to treat infestations with otherwise banned pesticides. This recommendation is based on the experience of other municipalities that permit systems are expensive and that most applications are approved in any case.
Staff has provided a number of possible options for modifications to some details of the proposed by-law, while preserving its essential character.
(a) Require a permit for the treatment of
infestations
Modifying the proposed by-law according to
this option would require that the homeowner or lawn
care company apply for a permit to
destroy an infestation. An inspection
by an official would be required to confirm the infestation. The permit would cost $25 to partially cover
administrative costs.
A permit system would likely only achieve significantly greater reductions in cosmetic pesticide use if the system requires third party confirmation that an infestation exists prior to issuance of a permit. Perth, Montréal and Thorold send out municipal inspectors to confirm the extent of the infestations and to evaluate the need for a pesticide application. Shediac and Halifax use third party contractors to perform the inspection service.
Application fees range from $0 (Halifax) to $25 (Perth).
(b) Refer to an advisory panel the development of
guidelines for the conditions under which an infestation could be treated with
pesticides
An infestation is defined in the proposed by-law as “the presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage.” Clear guidelines would need to be established to assist homeowners and the lawn care industry in applying this provision. Under Recommendation 1, staff would develop these guidelines based on precedents in other municipalities and in consultation with stakeholders.
If this option were adopted, an advisory panel made up of representatives of the lawn care industry, horticulturalists and environmentalists would be created to work with staff in the development of the guidelines. The guidelines would determine which pests, such as insects or plants, might constitute an infestation. The guidelines would also determine the conditions that would have to be present to constitute an infestation, such as the amount of lawn infested. The guidelines would also determine whether to permit the use of pesticides to prevent an infestation.
The guidelines would be approved by the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee, and updated regularly as better tools become available for the treatment of infestations without banned pesticides, and as the medical evidence evolves.
(c) Require a buffer
zone when pesticides are applied on golf courses
Modifying the proposed by-law according to this option would add a requirement for a five metre buffer strip where no pesticides can be applied adjacent to the property line of a golf course.
Adding a condition that prohibits pesticide application within five metres of any property boundary of a golf course will provide some protection from direct pesticide exposure for residents of properties abutting golf courses. The Perth, Hudson, Thorold and Montreal by-laws all require such buffer strips, although the widths vary.
Adopting this option would add an additional element of complexity to the enforcement of the by-law.
(d) Change the effective date to January 1, 2007
Modifying the proposed by-law according to
this option would change the effective date of the by-law from January 1, 2006,
to January 1, 2007. This change would
have no impact on the proposed implementation strategy, as charges were not
expected to be issued before July 1, 2007.
However, if this option were adopted and the
effective date delayed, it is expected that the enforcement strategy would be
less successful. No voluntary
compliance would be achieved until 2007.
Recommendation 3 – An
Alternative By-law for Regulation of Pesticide Use
This by-law, an alternative to Recommendation 1, and outlined in
Document 5, would regulate the use of pesticides on landscaped areas of lands
used for residential, commercial, institutional and industrial purposes by
establishing a number of conditions for its use:
a)
Pesticide-free periods. The use
of pesticides would not be permitted during July and August. Pesticides are generally not required for
lawn care during this period when children and other vulnerable populations are
most likely to be exposed.
b)
Signage requirements. All
applications of a pesticide would require signage to notify neighbours, who may
want to take precautions.
c)
Spot application requirement. In
order to discourage blanket applications, which are the biggest threat to human
health and the environment, and which are rarely required, the use of
pesticides would be restricted to 20% of the area of the horticultural
landscape during any 30-day period.
d)
Buffer zones. Buffer zones would
provide some protection for bodies of water, school yards and similar
facilities where vulnerable populations might be at higher risk.
e)
Restrictions based on weather.
The use of pesticides during weather events that increase the negative
health and environmental effects would be prohibited.
f)
Treatment of infestations.
Infestations could be treated with appropriate notification, and would
not be subject to the pesticide-free period or spot application restrictions.
One Ontario municipality uses this approach.
The main disadvantages of this approach for the city the size of Ottawa
are:
·
The alternative by-law sends the message that the cosmetic use of
pesticides is acceptable. As a result,
staff believes that it is unlikely to significantly reduce the non-essential
use of pesticides. The by-law
recommended by staff, including the Medical Officer of Health, and many other
health professionals, to protect vulnerable populations, including children and
seniors, sends the desired message that pesticides should not be used for
non-essential purposes.
·
Enforcement of the alternative by-law would be significantly more
challenging and a far greater burden on enforcement resources than
implementation of the by-law recommended by staff. It is estimated that By-law Services would require a minimum of
$200,000 for implementation of this by-law, versus the $90,000 estimated cost
for enforcement of the recommended by-law.
Staff recommends that a combination of public education about the by-law, support for residents and businesses in making the transition away from chemical pesticides, warnings and then charges, as appropriate, would be the most successful implementation strategy.
Public education is an essential complement to enforcement, as demonstrated by a 2004 study by the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2) and Cullbridge Marketing and Communications that examined the impact of by-laws and public education programs on reducing the cosmetic residential use of pesticides. The study found that a combination of a by-law and public education was most effective in reducing pesticide use. Specifically, the study report states that “in those communities that used the law as their primary tool, education was still vital to their ability to reduce the use of pesticides, along with effective enforcement and a permitting system that allowed people to apply to use banned pesticides.”1 Representatives of the lawn care industry have indicated that they would be willing to work with the City and retailers on these public education efforts.
Given these considerations, the following implementation strategy is proposed:
a) 2006 – Education Phase: The first year would be used to educate the public about the coming by-law and provide additional opportunity for residents and businesses to learn about alternative methods of pest control for healthy, attractive lawns and gardens. Information kits would be provided to alleged violators.
b) January 1 to July 1, 2007 – Warning Phase: Enforcement would begin in January 2007 with a warning phase until July 1, 2007. By-law officers would investigate requests for service/complaints concerning pesticide use. Any confirmed pesticide applicator would be issued a warning and provided with the information kit. Public education efforts would continue.
c) After July 1, 2007 – Charging Phase: The education and awareness component of by-law implementation would continue, as circumstances warrant. Otherwise, charges would be laid. Enforcement would continue to be carried out on a request for service basis.
Ottawa will be in a good position to fine tune this enforcement strategy by observing what happens as other cities with by-laws begin issuing warnings and charges, having already completed their education phase.
The current funding levels of $300,000 annually would be sufficient to fund this implementation strategy, including allocating $90,000 of the $300,000 annually to By-law Services once the warning and charging phases begin in 2007.
Recommendation 5 – Options for Implementation Strategy
(a) Change the implementation strategy to: education and warnings in 2006; and, charges
as appropriate starting in 2007
Modifying the recommended implementation
strategy according to this option would advance the warning phase by 12 months
and the charging phase by 6 months.
This option requires an effective date of January 1, 2006. Advancing the timetable would likely result
in less voluntary compliance and a greater burden on enforcement resources in
the long term. Funding requirements
would increase by $90,000 for 2006.
(b) Change the implementation strategy to: education in 2006; warnings in 2007; charges
as appropriate starting in 2008
Modifying the recommended enforcement
strategy according to this option would delay the charging phase by six
months. This option would allow greater
time for voluntary compliance in advance of charges. Funding requirements would remain the same.
A by-law to prohibit the non-essential use of pesticides within defined areas of the City will contribute significantly and positively to removing unnecessary contaminants from our ecosystem and to the health of soil, water, air, humans and other species. It will improve the interactions amongst species within our City’s natural systems, working towards a balanced and healthy local ecosystem.
The proposed by-law does not apply to the rural area as defined on Schedule A of the City’s Official Plan.
CONSULTATION
Corporate
The Environmental Sustainability Division, Public Health Branch, By-law Services Branch and Legal Services Branch have participated in the development of the proposals in this report.
Public / Stakeholders
Extensive public and
stakeholder consultation was undertaken as part of the development and
implementation of the pesticides reduction strategy during and since 2002. In drafting the recommended by-law, staff
met with the lawn care industry and the Policy Issues Sub-Committee of the
Rural Summit.
Further, a residential pesticide use survey was conducted and analysed by Decima Research in September 2005. A number of communications regarding the need for a pesticide by-law were also received.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
In order to support residents and businesses in making the transition away from chemical pesticides, and to ensure a level playing field through appropriate enforcement, staff recommends that the current annual funding commitment of $300,000 provided for by the Planning and Growth Management and Community and Protective Services Departments be maintained, subject to Council approval of the annual operating budget. This funding would be redirected to support both education and enforcement activities.
Costs would rise by an estimated $500,000 if Council were to adopt Recommendation 2(a)--Require a permit for the treatment of infestations.
Costs would also rise by $110,000 if Council were to choose to adopt Recommendation 3 – An Alternative By-law for Regulation of Pesticide Use.
Costs would rise by $90,000 for 2006 only, if Council were to adopt Recommendation 5(a), which begins the warning phase of by-law implementation in 2006.
The current budget pressures approved in principle by Council for the development of the 2006 draft operating budget do not currently include funding for options 2(a), 3 or 5(a). If Committee and Council were to approve any of these recommendations, additional funds will be required as outlined in the report. The net additional tax increase would range between .05% and .3%, depending on the option chosen and subject to Council approval of the draft operating estimates.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Update from Medical Officer of Health on Cosmetic Use of Pesticides
Document 2 (revised) – Recommended By-law
Document 3 – Communications from Medical Professionals and Associations
Document 4 – Communications from Public / Stakeholders
Document 5 – Outline of Provisions for Alternative By-law
DISPOSITION
Legal Services, in consultation with Planning and Growth Management and By-law Services, to process the by-law, as approved, for enactment.
Planning and Growth Management, in consultation with Public Health, By-law Services and Client Services and Public Information, to develop and implement the public education strategy, including public notification.
By-law Services to implement the by-law education and enforcement strategy.
[1] “The Impact of By-law and Public Education Programs on Reducing the Cosmetic/Non-essential, Residential Use of Pesticides: A best Practices Review” Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2) and Cullbridge Marketing and Communications, 2004, p. 3.
[2] « The Impact of By-law and Public Education Programs on Reducing the Cosmetic/Non-essential, Residential Use of Pesticides: A best Practices Review », Centre canadien pour la prévention de la pollution (C2P2) et Cullbridge Marketing and Communications, 2004, p. 3.
[3]Sample size: 403 Ottawa households; Sampling Error: ±4.9% at 95% confidence.