By Angela Johnston
After two heated meetings Ottawa city council eventually told pesticide bylaw supporters to bug off. After a dramatic campaign including tales of clandestine e-mail spamming and venomous name-calling, the bylaw is now officially off the books.
But as Bay Coun. Alex Cullen points out, 15 councillors supported a bylaw of some sort, at one time or another.
The defeat has left those close to the issue upset about the whole pesticide debacle.
“I didn’t think it was an issue,” says Mark MacKenzie, president of the Organic Landscape Alliance, “I thought it was a no-brainer.”
But what is unclear is the reason for the defeat of the proposed bylaw. Some blame an aggressive and well-funded lawn care lobby, while others blame lack of political will from city councillors. Others say it was a poorly designed bylaw to begin with.
MacKenzie says a very successful spin was put on the pesticide issue by chemical companies.
Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes says too many city councillors gave into the “scare tactics” of this lobby.
She says these tactics included convincing residents their lawns would be covered in weeds, that the only way to deal with this problem would be to use pesticides and that lawn-care companies would go out of business.
In 2002, city council adopted a three-year pesticide public education program. The aim was a voluntary 70 per cent reduction of pesticides in residential areas. Council had said they would implement a bylaw this year if this benchmark had not been reached.
Cullen says public education was not enough because the public did not reach this target. Holmes says this proves it was a “dismal failure.”
So the politicking at City Hall began. With a tied vote on Oct. 26, council defeated the bylaw on Nov. 9, by a vote of 12-9.
Bell-South Nepean Coun. Jan Harder was critical of any bylaw: “Some people may be willing to support this and shovel it down people’s throats, but I’m not,” she said at the Nov. 9 meeting, “People do not support this.”
Still, a survey of Ottawa residents in 2004 suggested 62 per cent of residents would accept a bylaw, according to a health, recreation and social services committee report.
Cullen says it was a difficult issue to balance.
“Every time you attracted a vote, you lost a vote,” he says. For example, while Baseline Coun. Rick Chiarelli said in the Nov. 9 council meeting that he would vote for the bylaw if a plebiscite was held over the issue, Kanata Coun. Peggy Feltmate said she could not continue to support the overall bylaw if a plebiscite was included.
Holmes, who chairs the committee responsible for the bylaw, says that although all councillors said they were in favour of a bylaw, in reality, they weren’t.
She says that regardless of which motion was presented, several councillors consistently voted against any bylaw.
Thom Bourne, owner of Nutri-Lawn and spokesperson for the lawn care industry, says the bylaw was flawed from the beginning. He says that because pesticide use would only be allowed after at least 20 per cent (if not more) infestation of residents’ lawns that the threshold was too high for most people.
Bourne says the bylaw would actually encourage more pesticide use ecause of high infestation levels.
Holmes says this misses the point, adding that the bylaw in itself was intended to change people’s behaviour. “We’re not sending out the lawn care police,” she says. But she says she hoped people would learn over time, like the poop-and-scoop campaign from past years.
Seventy-seven municipalities and major Canadian cities—including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax—have already banned pesticides. Holmes says perhaps other cities were more concerned about public health.
Dr. Robin Walker, medical director of critical care at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, says when health risks outweigh benefits of a weed-less lawn, a bylaw is needed.
“In Ottawa, it’s valid,” he says of the bylaw.
The issue cannot be brought before council again until early 2007, and some councillors say they will make it an election issue.