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
20 September 2001/ le 20 septembre 2001)
Submitted
by/Soumis par: Councillor/Conseiller A.
Cullen,
Quartier Bay Ward
Contact/Personne-ressource: As above
Telephone No. 580-2477
Alex.Cullen@city.ottawa.on.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2001-CCS-HRS-0019 |
SUBJECT: CITY OF OTTAWA STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE
COSMETIC USE OF PESTICIDES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
OBJET: STRATÉGIE DE LA VILLE D’OTTAWA EN VUE DE RÉDUIRE L’USAGE DES PESTICIDES
À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES SUR LA PROPRIÉTÉ PRIVÉE
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council approve
the following:
Whereas
citizens in Ottawa have expressed concerns over the health effects of the use
of pesticides on humans and animals, as well as the environment;
Whereas an estimated 20% of
citizens of Ottawa suffer from environmental sensitivities, including
sensitivities to pesticides;
Whereas there
already exist safer alternatives to pesticides that are available in Ottawa;
Whereas
the City of Ottawa has adopted a policy regulating the cosmetic use of pesticides
on City property;
Whereas
the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled, in the Hudson Case, that
municipalities can regulate the use of pesticides on private property;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that City of Ottawa staff prepare a strategy to reduce the
cosmetic use of pesticides on private property to include:
1.
A draft bylaw governing the cosmetic use of pesticides
on private property in the urban area;
2.
A public consultation process that would accompany the
introduction of this bylaw;
3.
The development of a public education campaign to
accompany this process on the health concerns relating to pesticides and the
use of safer alternatives to pesticides, and;
4.
A budget estimate to accomplish this strategy for the
2002 budget process.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de la santé, des
loisirs et des services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal d’approuver ce
qui suit :
Attendu que les résidents d’Ottawa se disent inquiets des effets de
l’utilisation des pesticides sur la santé des personnes et des animaux, ainsi
que sur l’environnement;
Attendu qu’environ 20 % des résidents d’Ottawa
souffrent de sensibilités à des facteurs environnementaux, y compris aux
pesticides;
Attendu que des solutions de rechange sûres aux pesticides sont déjà disponibles
à Ottawa;
Attendu que la Ville d’Ottawa a adopté une politique régissant
l’utilisation des pesticides à des fins esthétiques sur la propriété
municipale;
Attendu que la Cour suprême du Canada a récemment statué, dans le cas de Hudson, que les municipalités peuvent réglementer l’utilisation des pesticides sur la propriété privée;
IL EST RÉSOLU QUE le personnel de la Ville d’Ottawa élabore une stratégie en vue de réduire l’utilisation des pesticides à des fins esthétiques sur la propriété privée, incluant :
1. Un projet de règlement municipal régissant l’utilisation des pesticides à des fins esthétiques sur la propriété privée dans le secteur urbain;
2. Un processus de consultation publique qui coïnciderait avec la présentation du règlement;
3. La mise sur pied d’une campagne
d’éducation publique, conjointement avec ce processus, qui traiterait des
problèmes de santé liés aux pesticides et du recours à des solutions de
rechange sûres aux pesticides;
4. Des prévisions budgétaires à l’appui de cette stratégie pour le processus budgétaire de 2002.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of 20 September 2001, the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee received a Notice of Motion from Councillor A. Cullen for the meeting of 4 October 2001. The Motion in question is attached as this report’s recommendations.
DISCUSSION
City of Ottawa Council, at its meeting of 23 May 2001, approved an Interim Integrated Pest Management Policy (Health, Recreation and Social Services Report 6A refers) for the City of Ottawa and other affected Departments.
On 2 August 2001, the HRSS Committee received for information the attached report, dated 17 July 2001 from the City Solicitor, J. Bellomo, on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) and Services des espaces verts Ltée/Chemlawn V. Town of Hudson (Province of Québec).
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Solicitor’s report dated 17 July 01, as noted above.
2. Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee Assistant’s memorandum dated 27 September 01, listing correspondence received in support of the Motion.
DISPOSITION
Following consideration by the Committee, Secretariat staff will forward the report to City Council for approval.
Report to/Rapport
au:
Health, Recreation
and Social Services Committee/
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services
sociaux
17 July 2001/le 17 juillet
2001
Submitted
by/Soumis par:
J.
Jerald Bellomo, City Solicitor/Directeur des services juridiques
Corporate
Services Department/Services généraux
Contact/Personne
ressource: Tim Marc, Manager, Planning
& Development Law/
Gestionnaire, Droit de l’urbanisme et de
l’aménagement
580-2424
ext. 21444 Timothy.Marc@city.ottawa.on.ca
|
|
|
Ref N°: ACS2001-CRS-LEG-0020 |
SUBJECT: PESTICIDES
– 114957 CANADA LTÉE (SPRAYTECH, SOCIÉTÉ D’ARROSAGE) AND SERVICES DES ESPACES
VERTS LTÉE/CHEMLAWN V. TOWN OF HUDSON
OBJET: PESTICIDES
– 114957 CANADA LTÉE (SPRAYTECH, SOCIÉTÉ D’ARROSAGE) ET SERVICES DES ESPACES
VERTS LTÉE/CHEMLAWN c. VILLE DE HUDSON
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee
receive this report for information.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité
de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux prenne connaissance du présent
rapport à titre d’information.
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2001, the following inquiry was filed at the HRSS Committee, “In light of the recent Supreme Court decision re: Hudson (Québec), that staff report to Committee and Council on the next steps that the City of Ottawa may take in regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides.” This report is a response to that inquiry.
On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark decision in the area of municipal law in the case of Spraytech and Chemlawn v. Town of Hudson. The specific issue before the Court was whether a municipality can regulate the use of pesticides on private property.
OPINION
Based upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Hudson case, it appears that there is jurisdiction for the City of Ottawa to control the use of pesticides on private property within the City. However, such control could not be an absolute prohibition and, further, any differences in the treatment of persons affected by such a by-law would have to be consistent with the principle of advancing the interests of the health of the citizens of Ottawa.
DISCUSSION
In 1991, the Town of Hudson had passed a by-law which prohibited the use of pesticides within the town other than for the following uses:
(a) in a public or private swimming pool;
(b) to purify water;
(c) inside of a building;
(d) to control or destroy animals which constitute a danger for human beings;
(e) to control or destroy plants which constitute a danger for human beings who are allergic to them;
(f) agricultural or horticultural uses provided that notice of schedule of application of the pesticides is given;
(g) for a golf course, until 1996; or
(h) a biological pesticide to control or destroy insects which constitute a danger or inconvenience for human beings.
Pesticide was defined as:
Any substance, matter or micro-organism intended to control, destroy,
reduce, attract or repel, directly or indirectly, an organism which is noxious,
harmful or annoying for a human being, fauna, vegetation, crops or other goods
or intended to regulate the growth of vegetation, excluding medicine or
vaccine.
The Court noted that the by-law was not a total prohibition on the use of pesticides, but “rather permits the use of pesticides in certain situations where the use of pesticides is not purely an aesthetic pursuit”. Spraytech and Chemlawn sought a declaration that the by-law was beyond the powers of the Town of Hudson. The lower Courts found in favour of the Town and the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal of Spraytech and Chemlawn.
The authority upon which the town relied for the enactment of the by-law was the Cities and Towns Act of Québec, subsection 410(1). This provision permitted a Council to enact by-laws:
(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 of Quebec, nor inconsistent with any special provision of this Act or of the Charter;
The Court noted the similarity of this subsection to other provisions such as the Municipal Act of Ontario, section 102. Section 102 states:
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 this Act and for governing the conduct of its members as may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law.
The Court noted that notwithstanding the generality of the wording in subsection 410(1), such provisions do not confer an unlimited power. There must be a connection to the municipality’s permissible objectives. The Court felt that the implicit purpose of the by-law was to “minimize the use of allegedly harmful pesticides in order to promote the health of its inhabitants” and that such a use fell within the health component of subsection 410(1). Significantly, it was not necessary for the Town of Hudson to establish that pesticides were in fact harmful to human health; it was sufficient that these were “allegedly” harmful and the by-law’s intent was to promote the health of the Town’s inhabitants.
The appellants argued that the by-law should be struck down as discriminatory. However the Court was of a view that the distinctions drawn in the by-law were necessary to the goal of improving the health of the Town’s inhabitants.
Finally, the appellants argued that the by-law was inconsistent with provincial and federal legislation. The Court found that no such inconsistency or actual conflict existed. A by-law would be found outside of municipal authority if it covers the same ground as federal or provincial legislation and if it was impossible to comply with both. So long as “dual compliance” with federal and provincial legislation is possible, the municipality had the authority to enact a by-law that impinged on federal or provincial authority. The Court also found that the by-law has established a tri-level regulatory regime governing pesticide usage.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
This report sets out some options available to the municipality. However, a staff report would be required prior to any further action being taken.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
The concerns of farmers would have to be addressed in any policy restricting the use of pesticides within the municipal boundaries.
CONSULTATION
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no immediate financial implications.
DISPOSITION
This report is for information only.
|
M E M O N O T E D E S E R V I C E |
|
|
To / Destinataire |
Mayor and Members of Council |
File/N° de
fichier: ACS2001-CCS-HRS-0019 |
|
From /
Expéditeur |
Committee Assistant |
|
|
Subject /
Objet |
CITY OF OTTAWA STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE COSMETIC USE OF
PESTICIDES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY |
Date: 27 September, 2001 |
We have received correspondence from residents of the City of Ottawa respecting reduction and restriction of the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property. They are requesting that the City implement a bylaw in this respect.
I am submitting for your information a summary of the correspondence received.
1. E-mail from Gail Moorhead, Kanata, Ontario
2. Letter from Doris and Steve Ramphos, Nepean, Ontario
3. Letter from Rosalie Reynolds, Ottawa, Ontario
4. Letter to Councillor R. Chiarelli from Mike Christie, Nepean, Ontario
5. E-mail from Mr. E.J. Carroll, Ottawa South
6. E-mail from Lynn Johnston and Les Adamek, Ottawa, Ontario
7. E-mail from Hugh Gibeault, Gloucester, Ontario
8. E-mail from Andre Gallant, Ottawa, Ontario
9. E-mail from Peggy Land, Gloucester, Ontario
10. E-mail from Mary Sean Kelley, Ottawa, Ontario
11. E-mail from Gina Thompson, John, Natasha , and Gabrielle Place, Ottawa, Ontario
12. Letter to Councillor R. Chiarelli from Cindy De Cuypere, Ottawa, Ontario
13. E-mail from Don and Emma DeCuypère, Gloucester, Ontario
14. E-mail to Councillor D. Deans from Bette and Bryan Hawley & Family,
Ottawa, Ontario
15. E-mail from Michel David, Ottawa South
16. E-mail to Councillor C. Doucet from the Chernushenko Family, Ottawa,
Ontario
17. Petition of 23 signatures to Councillor A. Cullen
18. E-mail from Kelly DiCesare, Ottawa, Ontario
19. Email from Andrew and Margaret Hartshorn, Ottawa, Ontario
20. E-mail from Michel David, Minister, Ottawa South
21. E-mail to Councillor R. Chiarelli from Eric Thomas , Ottawa, Ontario
22. E-mail to Councillor A. Cullen from Stephen Mitchell, Ottawa, Ontario
23. E-mail from the Barrie Family, Smiths Falls and Ottawa, Ontario
24. E-mail to Councillor A. Munter from Mike Christie, Nepean, Ontario
25. E-mail from Chantal Levert, Ottawa, Ontario
26. E-mail to Councillor W. Stewart from Carol Gudz, Ottawa, Ontario
If you are interested in reviewing a particular submission, please contact the Committee Coordinator, Monique Beauregard, at 580-2424, ext. 21622.
Carole
Casselman