Canadian
Activists Win Pesticide Bylaws
 by
Angela Rickman
Summer in Canada
is eagerly awaited; after months of ice, snow and cold, birds and
butterflies return from warmer climes, and animals and insects emerge
from hibernation. So too does the chemical industry, with advertisements
promising lush green lawns free of weeds and insects.
Increasingly, along
with summer comes a flurry of activity in municipal Council Chambers
as activists press for restrictions on lawn and garden pesticide
use. Almost 70 cities and towns across the country have passed bylaws
restricting or prohibiting pesticide use for cosmetic reasons within
their boundaries, and dozens more are debating the issue. One entire
province, Quebec, has passed a Pesticide Code which bans the use
of many chemicals in areas where children may be exposed, including
in and around homes, schools, daycares, parks and public spaces.
When the populations
of the municipalities that have passed bylaws on pesticides are
added up, almost 40% of Canada’s population is better protected
from cosmetic pesticide use by these new bans.
What has sparked
this dramatic turn of events? Does Canada have some wonderful, progressive
federal legislation that allows municipalities to ban pesticides?
How are activists managing, in a few short years, to win bans that
we have been trying to achieve for decades? The success of this
ultimate grassroots campaign is due to a number of factors, but
to understand it we must first visit the town of Hudson, Quebec.
The Hudson bylaw
In 1991, a group
of activists in Hudson, a small town (population 4,786) near Montreal,
Quebec, convinced their local City Council that the health and environmental
risks of pesticide use outweighed the alleged benefits, which were
primarily aesthetic in nature. The Council passed a local bylaw
banning the use of pesticides for “cosmetic” purposes,
with some exemptions for uses such as agriculture, horticulture,
and on golf courses. Local chemical lawn care companies, Chemlawn
and Spraytech, challenged the bylaw in court, claiming the municipality
had no authority to prohibit the use of federally registered products.
The Court ruled in favour of the municipality, and the bylaw stood.
The companies appealed to the Quebec Superior Court, and the appeal
was dismissed. (1) Determined, the companies appealed to Canada’s
Supreme Court, where the case was finally heard ten years after
the original bylaw was passed. This would prove to be a big mistake,
had the companies just dropped the issue, the pesticide movement
in Canada would look very different today
The movement
in Canada
During the 1980s
and early ’90s, environmental issues were becoming increasingly
visible in Canadian daily life. Acid rain, the Montreal Protocol
protecting the ozone layer, defeats of large hydro and pipeline
projects and the Rio Summit in 1992 all drew increasing attention
to environmental issues. As more and more children developed asthma
and allergies and cancer rates seemed to be rising, people looked
for a cause. Canadians were paying attention to their health, and
were linking the quality of their health to the quality of the environment.
At the federal level,
commitments to revamp the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), which
had not been updated since its enactment in 1969, had turned into
lengthy consultations with stakeholder groups. Finally, in an effort
to pacify Canadians worried about the health effects of chemical
pesticides, the government moved the agency responsible for registering
pesticides, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), out of
the federal department of agriculture to the jurisdiction of the
federal Health Ministry. (2) However, the Act itself was hardly
changed. A new hierarchy was created, but the staff, location, and
outlook of the regulators remained the same.
In towns across
the country, individuals and some small groups began to pressure
their communities to restrict pesticides at the local level. Often
dismissed as “flakes” by neighbors and city officials,
it was difficult for activists, primarily women, to make their voices
heard. Many activists felt they lacked the credibility to win on
the issue; they weren’t doctors or scientists or lawyers,
most were motivated by the desire to protect their families, communities,
pets or environment. It was a discouraging and lonely crusade, which
was met with little success outside of Quebec. In fact, few outside
the province had even heard of tiny Hudson and its bylaw.
A network
is born
In 1996, representatives
of some of Canada’s big environmental and labour organizations
got together, frustrated that years of lobbying for reform of the
PCPA had resulted in little more than a name change. Looking across
the country, there were many isolated efforts targeting pesticides,
but little coordination or communication. Some efforts had been
made to centralize information on pesticide campaigns, but none
had succeeded. A clearinghouse for information on activism against
pesticides across the country was needed, with basic information
on pesticides, advice and suggestions on advocacy efforts, primers
on how government and the pesticide legislation worked, and a means
to provide information on what was happening at the federal level
to support local campaigns. To bring activists together, the Toronto
Environmental Alliance, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Sierra
Club of Canada, World Wildlife Fund and Citizens for Alternatives
to Pesticides (CAP) launched the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction
(CPR!).
Invitations to join
went out to the members of the founding organizations and to all
of the environmental organizations that had available mailing addresses.
Within a year, CPR! had 75 members and member groups from coast
to coast. For the first time, people who had been working on pesticide
issues alone had someone to call for advice. No longer isolated,
activists could call or email others and compare stories.
On Earth Day 1996,
CPR! launched the national pesticide bylaw campaign. Groups in 22
municipalities across the country held simultaneous press conferences
or issued coordinated press releases to launch their local campaigns.
The media sat up and took notice.
Within five years,
over 50 bylaw campaigns were underway across the country. There
was an annual coordinated launch of the bylaw campaign, with a national
press conference as well as local press conferences around the nation.
The week around Earth Day became “National Pesticide Free
Week,” and activists in communities went to their City Councils
to have Pesticide Free Week officially declared in their communities.
Templates of bylaws, letters to the editor, etc. were sent out to
campaigns across the country. If a group undertook a campaign, they
received, “Pesticide Bylaws: Why we need them and how to get
them” a book by Merryl Hammond of CAP. A great resource for
anyone campaigning for a bylaw, the book included fact sheets on
health and environmental effects, tips for making presentations
to Council members, sample news releases, sample bylaws and much
more. (3)
As news of active
campaigns reached other communities new campaigns sprang up like
weeds. The CPR! member groups in Ontario spun off into their own
powerful and efficient network.
The chemical
industry reacts
As the anti-pesticide
movement grew and media attention increased, the pesticide industry
was ill-prepared to deal with the public’s rejection of lawn
and garden pesticides. The initial reaction was to underestimate
the movement and dismiss activists as cranks who stood little chance
of success.
However, as more
and more campaigns sprung up, the industry was forced to change
gears; their biggest problem was the nature of the campaign. The
industry, represented by an organization for the national chemical
lobby, the Crop Protection Institute, was accustomed to lobbying
bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa and provincial capitals. Industry
lobbyists did not understand the mechanism of a grassroots movement
that was fighting in town after town, with each victory communicated
throughout the network and heralded in local and national press.
It was a battle for public opinion, and the opinions that mattered
were those of City Council members in towns scattered across the
country, not Cabinet Ministers and senior government bureaucrats.
Ordinary people had better access to their Council members, who
in many cases were their neighbors or acquaintances, and they were
using it.
By 1997, the Crop
Protection Institute began sending a senior employee to make presentations
to City Councils debating bylaws. The strategy didn’t work
well, however, as the representative wasn’t charismatic or
versed in public relations techniques, and didn’t know the
local politicians. In one instance, the industry representative
was overheard explaining dispassionately the testing of chemicals
for toxicity on beagles to a mayor who was a well-known beagle owner
and lover. It became a joke among bylaw campaigners that you knew
your campaign was successful when the industry sent a representative.
Needless to say,
it was difficult for the industry to cover all the meetings in all
the cities and towns. Eventually, the Urban Pest Management Council
was created to work more effectively on local pest management issues,
and the industry response became much more sophisticated.
But if the government
registers pesticides, aren’t they safe?
One of the assurances
City Council members get from pro-pesticide lobbyists is that pesticides
don’t pose unreasonable risks because they are tested and
registered by Health Canada (the Canadian department of public health).
There was a time when that might have been a convincing argument,
but a number of scandals involving government agencies, and particularly
Health Canada, had undermined public confidence. Thousands of Canadians
contracted hepatitis-C from transfusions of tainted blood, while
Health Canada bureaucrats ignored available tests that could have
detected the infection and saved many lives.
In 2000, the House
of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment, chaired by government
member and former Cabinet Minister Charles Caccia, launched hearings
into pesticide regulation in Canada. After months of testimony from
activists, government scientists, industry, entomologists, and the
Minister of Health, the committee released a scathing report, entitled,
“Pesticides, Making the Right Choice.” (4) It detailed
serious shortcomings in the regulatory regime, and recommended immediate
changes to the 33 year-old Pest Control Products Act, including
the banning of cosmetic uses of pesticides. The report became another
powerful tool in the activists’ kit.
Because the report
was produced by a Standing Committee, the Minister of Health was
required to respond to the recommendations within a prescribed 90
day timeframe. The response appeared on the 90th day and was a pro-pesticide
“Healthy Lawns Strategy” which espoused a complicated,
chemical intensive and industry friendly version of integrated pest
management, and relied on the public to seek out information on
the web. (5)
In 2003, the Environmental
Auditor General, an independent, federally appointed auditor tasked
with examining the Federal Government’s performance on environmental
matters lambasted the government’s management of pesticides
in Canada, citing antiquated legislation, absence of monitoring
of adverse effects, secrecy, and general inadequacy. She pointed
out that Canada was one of only two countries in the OECD (Organizations
for Economic Cooperation and Development) that did not track pesticide
sales, and subsequently had no data on pesticide use (Slovenia was
the other). In an op-ed published in the Globe and Mail
in October 2003, the Auditor General, Johanne Gelinas, expressed
grave concerns after a follow-up audit:
“Across
the country, Canadians are passionately debating whether or not
to ban pesticides that keep lawns weed-free. The federal government
committed itself to re-evaluating eight lawn pesticides by 2001.
Last March, when my audit of federal pesticide management was
completed, five of those eight re-evaluations were still underway.
The government’s
failure to produce timely results leaves Canadians wondering if
they are being unnecessarily exposed to dangerous toxic substances
on their own front lawns. My annual report, tabled yesterday in
the House of Commons, found that such delays are common at the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency a branch of Health Canada. Ottawa
is not managing pesticides effectively, nor can it honestly say
that pesticide use in Canada is safe… The public is concerned
about pesticide safety. After my audit, so am I.” (6)
Allies
The campaign has
benefited from the support of a number of influential groups representing
health and labor, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Ontario
College of Family Physicians, the Registered Nurses Association
of Ontario, the Ontario Public Health Association, the Association
of Early Childhood Educators in Ontario, the Canadian Association
of Physicians for the Environment, the United Steelworkers of America,
the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, and the Canadian Labor Congress.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the lobby group for municipal
governments across the country, passed resolutions supporting pesticide
restrictions.
Milestones
In 2000, Halifax
became the first municipality outside Quebec to pass a bylaw restricting
cosmetic pesticide use. It was also the largest metropolitan area
to take the big step to date. The bylaw was phased in over a three-year
period, providing flexibility and a level of comfort for residents.
Halifax proved to reluctant council members across the country that
anti-pesticide bylaws were not a Quebec phenomenon, and that big
cities could do it too.
In June 2003, the
federal government finally passed the first amendments to the Pest
Control Products Act (PCPA). The legislation improved the safety
threshold to better protect vulnerable populations, but refused
to address the right of municipalities to restrict pesticides. The
Health Minister, who has ultimate authority in administrating the
PCPA, claimed she has no jurisdiction over municipal decisions.
Although she could have banned or restricted uses of the major lawn
chemicals, she did not. The new act also refused to use the term
precaution. Pesticide activists and citizens concerned about pesticide
risks have given the amended PCPA a lukewarm reception.
Legal hurdles
Many communities
watched as bylaw debates worked their way through the municipal
legislative process only to stall or fail as industry resorted to
their new tactic, threats of legal action. In letters to City Councils,
industry representatives promised dire financial repercussions if
a bylaw was passed -- they would be taken to court and sued for
lost revenues.
In December 2000,
the Supreme Court of Canada finally heard Chemlawn and Spraytech
vs. the municipality of Hudson. Two environmental law groups, the
Sierra Legal Defence Fund and the Canadian Environmental Law Association
represented individual activists and groups working on bylaw campaigns
as interveners. On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court set down a landmark
decision, unanimously affirming the legal power of Hudson to protect
residents’ health through enacting anti-pesticide bylaws.
The decision cited the precautionary principle and indicated that
the decision could be interpreted to apply to most Canadian municipalities.
It was a watershed moment for the anti-pesticide movement in Canada.
(7)
In the wake of the
decision, City Councils that had been hesitant moved ahead and passed
anti-pesticide bylaws. Within weeks, debates over whether to implement
a bylaw became transformed into consultations on the wording of
the laws.
In 2002, Quebec’s
Environment Minister, André Boisclair proposed a ban on the
use of 28 pesticides on public and private land. The Pesticide Code
would impose fines of as much as $30,000 for the use of any of the
listed pesticides on provincially or municipally-owned property,
while allowing private property owners a three year phase-in period.
Agricultural uses were exempted.
Within days, Donald
Page of the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D threatened to sue the
Quebec government under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), which allows private companies to sue governments
for lost profits. Minister Andre Boisclair stood up to the massive
chemical industry lobby and its threats of lawsuits, and, in March
2003, Quebec passed the Pesticide Code. (8) To date, no complaint
has been filed against the Quebec government.
In April 2004, the
Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) issued a report strongly
recommending that people reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever
possible. (9) The report’s comprehensive review of research
on the effects of pesticides on human health found consistent links
to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological
diseases, among others. The study also showed that children are
particularly vulnerable to pesticides.
The OCFP report
and its recommendations are a powerful tool for activists across
the country. The widespread media coverage of the report’s
release and the doctors’ recommendations has set off a flurry
of editorials and letters to the editor calling for pesticide bans.
(10)
Lessons learned
Looking back, it
is hard to point to any single concrete event or strategy that has
made the bylaw campaigns as successful as they have been, but a
number of events, decisions, and mistakes conspired to create a
favorable environment for the adoption of bylaws.
* The public is
becoming more apprehensive about exposure to chemicals. They do
not trust the government to protect them. Polls consistently show
that a vast majority support the introduction of pesticide bylaws.
* Communication
between activists working to ban or restrict pesticides has improved,
sophisticated listserves, websites, advice, support, and information
sharing are available. It is no longer necessary to reinvent the
wheel in each community.
* Some very powerful
allies have joined the campaign. Parliamentary Committees, the
Environmental Auditor General, physicians and politicians have
all joined the call for better protection from needless pesticide
use and urge an overhaul of the system that regulates the chemical
pesticides.
* The media interest
has kept the issue at the forefront.
* The Supreme
Court decision cleared the way for reticent Councils to push forward
on bans.
* The Quebec Pesticide
Code has given us a model for other provincial governments, and
is the next step for many who have achieved bans.
* Perhaps the
single biggest factor that contributed to the success of the campaigns
has been the industry response. The industry was slow to react,
and had no understanding of how to work at the grassroots level.
When they did respond, they were clumsy, arrogant and even threatening.
If those two lawn
care companies in Hudson had not pushed their case all the way to
the Supreme Court, none of the bylaws would exist today. While the
legality of the Hudson bylaw was in dispute, other municipalities
remained fearful of legal action and hesitated to proceed, but the
Supreme Court decision gave them courage.
In response, the
Canadian lawn care industry has developed a well-funded public relations
campaign. They created an organization to work against anti-pesticide
laws called the Environmental Coalition of Ontario (ECO), with subgroups
named for the target city, such as the Toronto Environmental Coalition
(TEC). TEC masquerades as an environmentally friendly organization,
lobbies and runs big ad campaigns. The day of the pesticide bylaw
vote in Toronto, employees of TEC appeared at City Hall with signs
and shirts that read “Don’t Make Gardening a Crime.”
Council members were not fooled, however, and the bylaw passed.
A subsequent court challenge to the bylaw filed by industry was
dismissed.
As the U.S. lawn
care industry gears up for an eventual fight south of the border,
they may learn from the Canadian example, but in Canada, the industry
still doesn’t get it. The best advice Canadian activists can
offer lawn care companies may be to go organic.
For a summary
of pesticide bylaws in Canada, visit the website of the Hamilton
Coalition on Pesticide Issues, at http://www.greenventure.on.ca/hcpi.asp?ID=89.
Pesticide Walkabout poster image courtesy of Pesticide Free Ontario
and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Angela Rickman
is a Canadian pesticide activist and environmental consultant based
in Ottawa.
Notes
1 See Supreme
Court index, 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société
d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 40.
File No.: 26937. 2000: December 7; 2001.
2 Parliamentary
Business & Publications, Pesticides Products Control Act at
www.parl.gc.ca/english/hansard/102_96-11-19/102AP1E.html.
3 “Pesticide
Bylaws: Why we need them and how to get them” Merryl Hammond
Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides, order for $25 from CPR!
c/o 412-1 Nicholas Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7B7 Canada.
4 Pesticides
Making the Right Choice, at www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/04-toc-e.html.
5 Healthy
Lawn Strategy at: www.healthylawns.net/english/html/strategy-e.shtml.
6 Johanne
Gélinas, Globe and Mail, Ottawa, Ontario, Oct 8,
2003, page A2.
7 See the
Canadian Environmental Law Association materials related to the
Supreme Court of Canada Decision on Municipal Powers to Set Bylaws,
http://www.cela.ca.
8 “Pesticide
sparks NAFTA fight” July 5, 2002, The Montreal Gazette,
PANUPS, Nov. 15, 2002.
9 Ontario
College of Family Physicians, Pesticides Paper, April 2004, http://www.ocfp.on.ca.
10 Editorial
by Donald Page, “Only Bad Science Links 2,4-D to Cancer,” National
Post, Ottawa, Ontario, May 5, 2004.
|
Printer-friendly version