PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
URBANISME ET DE LA GESTION DE LA CROISSANCE
PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVALS
APPROBATION DES DEMANDES
D'AMÉNAGEMENT ET D'INFRASTRUCTURE
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
ACS2005-PGM-POL-0058 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
With regards to the argument presented that not being able to use
pesticides would have a negative impact on people’s property values, Ms. Brown
had difficulty understanding how that could be factored into an issue where the
health of people is such a serious concern.
She remarked that not using pesticides has proven to be a selling
feature for homes as more people are looking for properties where pesticides
are not used. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Frances McInnes, Alta Vista Environmental Network spoke in favour of the by-law.
She indicated that despite pesticide reduction talks hosted by the City
over the past three years, there has been an increase in pesticide use. She recalled incidents where her neighbours
were exposed to pesticides when they were sprayed in strong winds and those
that were convinced by a lawn care company that they had a grub infestation;
and yet, even though the lawn was treated, there was no improvement over the
years when no chemicals were used. Ms.
McInnes believed it was Council’s responsibility to protect the health of its
citizens, especially, the most vulnerable:
children, the elderly, those with respiratory illnesses and
environmental sensitivities. A copy of
her submission is held on file.
Jane Stratton talked about her experience being
exposed to pesticides in her neighbourhood and the concerns about the effects
these chemicals would have on her family.
She was particularly concerned that she does not always know when
spraying is going to take place and therefore, does not know when she is going
to be exposed to these chemicals. Also,
signs where chemicals have been sprayed are not always visible. She was particularly concerned about her
child and the health risks posed to him by pesticides. A copy of her presentation is held on file.
·
chemicals do not seem to stay put; they
are carried on the wind onto neighbouring lawns;
·
pesticides and herbicides are designed
to kill and if they are so proficient at killing other life, they must do some
kind of damage to humans and other species;
·
most human habits kill; the question
that must be asked is “How important is it to propagate monocultures of foreign
plants that were not meant to grow in this area anyway?”.
Paul Koch, Chair, Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) indicated that the committee fully endorsed the staff
recommendations and have put forward a Motion to that effect. He further noted the following:
- in
addition to a single exposure to a large dosage of a hazardous substance, the
cumulative effects of low dosage exposures over a long period of time can be
equally harmful;
- a
by-law will help people understand the seriousness of the issue and will help
then abide by the rules;
- the
EAC Motion supports the application of pesticides under controlled conditions
to address infestations, subject to the conditions as outlined in the proposed
by-law; the by-law should apply to both urban and rural areas;
- as
the Nation’s Capital, Ottawa must show leadership and act on a by-law designed
to protect the health and safety of the community, in particular its children.
A copy of the EAC submission is held on file.
Councillor Brooks, noting that many rural residents do not support a
by-law, asked whether the delegation felt rural Councillors should vote against
their constituents’ wishes. Mr. Koch
advised that, given the evidence and information currently available, the
precautionary principle should apply and people should ensure they do not use
substances that are not completely safe.
He posited that, if a vote were held in Ottawa today, the majority of
residents would vote in favour of a by-law to reduce the use of pesticides for
cosmetic purposes.
In response to a question from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Koch
confirmed that the lawn care industry had appeared twice before the EAC to make
presentations.
Councillor Bédard inquired
whether the EAC had considered limiting the use of pesticides to professional
applicators. While he stated that it
would be a good practice in certain situations, Mr. Koch expressed the belief
that homeowners would likely not call the City for a permit if they were able
to access the products to treat household problems such as ant and bee
nests. He felt that harmful products
should be banned, and that the industry should treat infestations with products
and methods that are safe and promote those treatment methods.
Susan Harvey spoke as a mother of a
5-year old child currently undergoing treatment for leukemia. She indicated that she worried that her own
repeated exposure to pesticides and herbicides improperly sprayed on lawns in
her neighbourhood prior to her daughter’s birth, may be partly to blame for her
child’s illness. She added that living
in an upper income neighbourhood increases a child’s risk of contacting leukemia
by 14%, because people in those neighbourhoods use more chemicals on their
lawns. Ms. Harvey spoke about
applications in her area being done improperly, with no consideration of wind
or weather conditions at the time. She
asked that people consider whether cancers are being caused because of a false
perception of beauty represented by a perfect and weed-free lawn. She urged Councillors to vote against the
use of pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic use in their communities.
Katherine Gunn pointed out that, on the
one side, there is the lawn care industry that wants to make a profit, and on
the other, private citizens and other professionals whose only motive is
protecting the health and safety of the environment. She posited that making a profit should not be the only reason on
which society bases its decisions. The
industry’s claims that jobs would be lost if the by-law is implemented are not
totally validated because organic methods have shown they can generate broad
employment and produce good results.
Finally, Ms. Gunn stated that if residents had not reduced pesticide use
in the last three years, there was no reason to believe there would be much of
a difference over time.
Rosalie Reynolds stated that unnecessary
pesticide use adds to the burdens humans impose on the planet. She was pleased to see that authorities are
finally beginning to collect the alarming statistics of the effects that
pesticides have on the health of all living things, noting that even the World
Bank has acknowledged these statistics.
She questioned how much damage would be done to the earth and its
children before a total ban on pesticides occurs. She acknowledged that the industry’s concerns about job and
income loss are genuine, recalling that tobacco farmers suffered the same
problems when the smoking by-laws were put in place. However, this is not a justification for maintaining a bad habit.
Bob Stevenson expressed the view that a
by-law is long overdue and that there has already been a long enough debate on
the matter. In addition to contributing
to 80% of all cancers environmentally induced, pesticides cause damage to
marine plant and animal life through contamination of groundwater. He cited the lack of political will,
especially at the federal level, to control polluters. He indicated that the federal regulatory
process was flawed and there has never been adequate testing for the 75,000 new
chemicals marketed over the past fifty years:
federal regulators rely on the chemical manufacturers for test results. Chemical companies should be required to
prove there are no long-term negative impacts on humans and on the environment
before being allowed to market their products.
Darlene MacInnis, Office Manager, Nutri-Lawn said she is pro-pesticides and does not support the implementation
of the by-law being proposed. She
pointed out that the 350 industry professionals have come together to educate
their clients; they feel the products they apply are safe and properly used by
professionals. They caution that the
by-law would be detrimental both to the industry and the community. She went on to state that lawn care
companies have had success in reducing pesticide use and she urged the
Committee not to support a total ban on cosmetic pesticides but vote in favour
of more education and a workable compromise.
Councillor Cullen asked whether Nutri-Lawn offered organic programs,
Mrs. MacInnis advised that the company has offered three organic programs for a
number of years and have committed half its advertising to that side of the
business. In spite of this, no more
than 10% of clients switched to organics.
Some chose to include chemically administered weed control making it
difficult to classify them as totally organic customers. The councillor pointed that the Decima
Survey found that in 2003, 34% of residents that hired lawn care companies were
not offered a choice between chemical and non-chemical methods: that percentage grew to 41% in 2005. He felt that, although Nutri-Lawn might be
working towards a transition between the two techniques, many companies were
not.
When asked by Councillor Deans what sort of compromise the industry
wanted, Mrs. MacInnis advised that integrated pest management accredited
companies should be able to assess and solve homeowners infestation problems
without the homeowner needing a permit.
Also, they want to be able to use pesticides if the problem warrants
it. They would also continue to educate
customers and work with the City on reduction targets.
Dr. Marge Sanborn stated
that in a 2004 study, the Systematic Review of Pesticides on Human Health
Effects reported the following:
premature births, serious birth defects, genetic malformations,
low-weight babies and infertility; a strong incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
and genetic damage to cells. She
pointed out that 40% of children with leukemia have slow metabolic rates, and
are impacted by insecticides and pesticides.
Dr. Sanborn asked that Councillors protect the health of, and provide
better conditions for, the entire community.
In reply to questions from Councillor Cullen, Dr. Sanborn indicated
that the study’s findings had not been challenged in any journals or through
peer review. She added that this
conservative group of physicians were surprised by the large amount of research
into the effects of pesticides. With
regard to whether the science in the study conflicts with that of scientists
involved in the PMRA, Dr. Sanborn said that some chemicals have been out for
several years without being re-evaluated and numerous pesticides are being
taken off the market at the present time.
The councillor made reference to a report by the Ontario College of
Family Physicians, which states that the PMRA agrees that people should reduce
their reliance on and exposure to pesticides and he asked Dr. Sanborn whether
she thought it was catching up. She
responded by saying that an advisory group in the United Kingdom had made the
same observation.
Following on her last comment, Councillor
Stavinga asked whether this means that regulatory action is needed in the
U.K. Dr. Sanborn clarified that the
advisory group would not identify who did their review, but had advised people
not to use pesticides and put a statement to this effect on its web page.
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong spoke as an environmental
physician certified by the International Board of Environmental Medicine. She has seen 2500 patients and has a 2-year
waiting list. In a survey of people
with chemical sensitivities, 80% of these stated they knew how they became ill
and 60% of those ascribe their condition to pesticides (Source: Nicholas Ashford, Ph.S, and Claudia S Miller, M.S. Chemical Exposures-Low Levels, High
Stakes.” Van Nostrant Reinhold, New York
1991). Dr. Armstrong urged an end to the use of
pesticides, adding that the following leading medical experts support a pesticide bylaw: the Canadian Association of Physicians for
the Environment; the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario; CHEO; the
Canadian Cancer Society, and; the Ontario College of Family Physicians. She was not aware of
any legitimate medical organizations that endorse the use of pesticides for
cosmetic purposes. She disagreed that
this is a property rights issue, noting that pesticides have no borders and drift
and contaminate the groundwater, the rivers, the air people breathe, and the
soil. Dr. Armstrong concluded her
presentation by urging Council to adopt a by-law similar to the one recently
adopted by Peterborough, which puts people’s health first. The complete text of her submission is held
on file.
Jody MacInnis, Production Manager, Nutri-Lawn indicated he was an accredited pesticide examiner with the Ministry
of the Environment and has worked in the lawn care industry for 14 years. He has done the research on the products and
the alternatives, and can emphatically state that he feels safe using and
recommending pesticides, and teaching technicians how to apply them. He asked how banning professional lawn care
companies from spot-applying weed and insect control on private property could
be seen as a health issue. He pointed
out that City staff believes it is unsafe for his child and him to walk by
lawns sprayed with pesticides but that eating foods sprayed with the same
pesticides is acceptable. He posited
that people living in rural areas, near farms where pesticides are sprayed must
be much healthier than those living in the city, since pesticides are not seen
as harmful to rural residents. In
addition, Health Canada and other health organizations say that pesticides are
safe when used properly. Mr. MacInnis
concluded by stating that a by-law would not stop people from using and
possibly over-using products that are available in stores, to protect their
assets: the only result would be that
lawn care professionals would be put out of business.
Councillor Cullen made reference to the Organics Free program
offered by Nutri-Lawn, and inquired that, should Council pass the by-law, this
would not be something the company can market and use. Mr. MacInnis said it was possible to promote
organic products when lawns are healthy, but confirmed that organics do not
eliminate weeds or insects. When asked
to respond, the City’s horticultural advisor, Anne Jackson-Hughes said she did
not agree, stating that many of the insect problems can be managed by improving
horticultural practices; once the soil structure has been improved, weeds can
be more easily pulled out and are much less of a problem.
Replying to a further question from Councillor Bédard about
customers’ use of organic methods, Mr. MacInnis indicated that 60% of
Nutri-Lawn’s organic customers use pesticides throughout the season and ask for
spot application to get rid of weeds.
He said he doubted whether the company would retain these people as
customers.
Shirley Mosely could
not understand how the City expects to pass a by-law condemning the use of a
substance that will remain legally and readily available to all
homeowners. She noted the claims that
the by-law is being proposed in protection of the health of children and stated
that many people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses would suffer more
if the by-law takes away their ability to control those weeds and plants that
aggravate their conditions. She also
questioned the cost to the taxpayers, as she felt the grass on parks and
sportsfields would likely require more frequent maintenance and/or total
replacement. She felt that this issue
would cause great conflict between the rural and urban areas of the city as
exemptions are made. She referred to
recent newspaper articles that quote various doctors and other professionals as
saying that there is no hard-core evidence of any dangers of using pesticide,
and to others who acknowledge they are expressing opinions, not facts. She urged Committee to take more time to
consider this issue before voting.
Councillor Holmes asked staff to
clarify what is contained in the report with respect to urban versus rural
inclusion, as well as what concrete evidence there is at this point. Mr. Jacobs responded by stating that
the proposed by-law is not intended to apply to the rural area, and the rural
area is as defined in the Official Plan.
The reasons provided in the report for that are to acknowledge the ongoing
discussions with the rural community and direction to further consult through
the Rural Summit, and following that with the rural community before major
policy initiatives are put in place in the rural area. Dr. Salisbury stated that the issue of
the certainty of the medical evidence is never going to be totally
resolved. He stated that no responsible
scientist would ever say that there is absolute scientific certainty. However, he pointed out that the bulk of the
evidence is now pointing towards the fact that these chemicals are injurious to
human health, which is the consensus of the medical opinion at the moment.
Councillor Bédard questioned Dr. Salisbury’s opinion on the
delegation’s comments that asthma sufferers and others would be affected by an
abundance of weeds if the by-law were implemented. Dr. Salisbury stated this is a very controversial subject with
varying opinions, but the general consensus at this time is that pesticides are
actually more harmful to people with allergies and with asthma than they are
helpful. That is not to say, however,
that a specific weed type cannot precipitate an asthma attack in an individual,
and for that reason it might be regarded as a health hazard in and of its
own. He noted that the Lung Association
and respirologists are of the opinion that weeds are not a major contribution
to asthma or allergies, whereas they feel that pesticides are a more likely
contributing cause. He did acknowledge
again though that all such statements are made without 100% certainty. The councillor noted that one of the report
recommendations is that staff be asked to work with the industry to determine
policies and processes to be used for infestations, and he wondered whether an
abundance of certain weeds would be classed as an infestation, or if that will
be limited to insects. Mr. Jacobs
explained that would be at the discretion of the committee to decide before
such discussions with the industry occur.
Debbie Jodoin spoke in opposition to the by-law
and pointed out that many of the food products grown and consumed here are done
with the use of pesticides and yet there is no proposal to ban their usage for
that purpose. Therefore, she did not
understand why the City seems to be concerned about their supposed toxic nature
when it comes to private lawns and gardens.
She stated that these are ideological beliefs, not scientific facts, and
therefore not an acceptable basis for implementing a by-law. She felt that the money and resources that
would have to be allotted for this purpose would be better spent on the City’s
core services. Finally, she asked that
Councillors poll their respective wards and get a clearer picture of their
constituents’ views before proceeding with the implementation of what she feels
would be a very divisive by-law. On a
personal note, she informed the Committee of various illnesses that she and
others in her family suffer from, none of which she feels are the result of
exposure to pesticide.
Councillor Deans questioned Ms. Jodoin’s thoughts on the concern
raised by some residents that their rights are being infringed upon because
pesticides do not stay where they are applied, but run off into groundwater and
become airborne. Ms. Jodoin replied
that she has her own rights as well, and they include the right to treat her
lawn, which she will continue to do unless the products are taken off the
shelves by the federal government. She
suggested that fertilizer pellets can be used instead of spray and are less
likely to migrate from the application site.
John Bloskie stated that he has worked in the
lawn care industry for 17 years. He
referred to various products listed on the City’s website as alternatives to
pesticides, and spoke to the potential dangers that also exist for each of
those substances, suggesting that alternatives are not necessarily safer than
traditional pesticides. He felt that
the City has failed to provide adequate education on safe alternatives to
pesticides, as it had committed to in 2003.
While he sympathizes with people that have children with illnesses, he
feels they are misguided in believing that those illnesses are caused by
pesticide exposure because the studies are often quoted out of context or in a
misguiding way.
Councillor Chiarelli wondered whether the delegation had any
experience or knowledge with how homeowners abuse pesticides. Mr. Bladen responded that people sometimes
abuse the product under the notion that applying more will improve the product
efficiency. The councillor wanted to
know if there were any specific types of weed or insect problems that could not
be remedied by non-chemical means, and Mr. Bladen replied in the negative. When asked by the councillor if he would
object to regulations that would require lawn care companies to market
non-chemical pesticides first to each of their clients, Mr. Bladen advised that
while he supported the marketing of organic alternatives, he felt that
pesticides should still be at the disposal of the client if that is the option
they wish to take.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Stavinga, the City’s
horticultural advisor, indicated that there is no equivalent to the weed
component of ‘Weed and Feed’ for killing the broad leaf weeds in a lawn. She indicated that the soil has to be
improved and perennial weeds eliminated by hand. Also, it was her understanding of the by-law that a weed-infested
lawn that could not be remedied by organic means would be permitted to receive
an application of pesticides.
Mr. Jacobs confirmed this, noting it would still require
notification of the City and posting a notification on the property, and would
have to be brought through an approved application process.
At this point in the proceedings, Councillor Bédard noted the
committee was running behind schedule, and, given the number of delegations
still to be heard, proposed the following Motion:
Darcy Olds, Bayer Crop Science informed the committee that he is a
graduate of the Ontario Agriculture College, has a certified Crop Protection
Consultant certificate, and has worked in the industry for the past 12 years,
currently employed with Bayer. He noted
that one of the products they manufacture is Merit, which is used extensively
to protect lawns from damage caused by grubs.
This product represents a relatively new class of insecticides, is
applied at low use rates, has relatively low toxicity, and represents a very
wide margin of safety. He indicated
that after receiving a presentation about this product in 2004, the City
approved its use on City sportsfields, where necessary. And, Quebec has allowed Merit to be included
on its list of exempt pesticides due to the level of safety that it
represents. He explained that Merit was
put through the same rigorous process as all other pesticides must be subjected
to before being registered, and that the process is a secure and valid
one. He was upset that people believe
the regulatory system is flawed and he was worried the by-law would ban the use
of Merit along with all other pesticides, based on this notion. He suggested that Council should take the
time to meet with the PMRA and discuss their concerns about the registration
process.
Councillor Cullen pointed out that one of the
City’s concerns is that when a pesticide is applied, the sign goes up for only
a few days but the chemical does not become inert when the sign is taken down,
and actually enters into the water system and food chain. He inquired about the half-life of Merit and
Mr. Olds indicated that its half-life in a turf grass environment, which would
be much different than applying it to a pure soil, is approximately 30
days. The councillor remarked, however,
that that figure differs significantly in studies submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and to the PMRA. Mr. Olds advised that the main factor one should look at in terms
of half-life is foliage residue; the product is applied as a drench and most of
it gets taken up into the roots, and the actual foliage residue has a half-life
of less than two days. Councillor
Cullen pointed out that even if the 30-day half-life is accepted, it is still
active when the signs come down and can still be tracked unknowingly into
people’s homes. When asked what Merit
breaks down into, Mr. Bladen explained that the main component is carbon
dioxide, but there are others. He
reiterated that it is a very low risk product, and there are no concerns that
it is a carcinogen or a mutagen.
Chris Lemke has been involved in the industry
for more than 12 years. He explained
that the pesticide by-law implemented in Toronto has not been well-received by
some customers, and that some of by-law enforcement officers in that City are
not well informed of MOE and industry regulations. This has caused conflict.
The industry has also been experiencing some problems with activists
that report applicators for using pesticides on certain lawns when in fact the
signage has shown that an organic product was used.
In response to a question posed by Councillor Deans about measuring
the success of the proposed by-law’s effect, Dr. Walker indicated that 73
municipalities have passed by-laws and studies from Halifax, for example, show
that without a by-law, the reductions are not substantial. By contrast, by-laws, combined with
education do substantially decrease usage.
Joel Theriault explained how the use of
pesticides in Ottawa affects other communities, even though the connection may
not be entirely visible. As hunters and
fishermen in northern Ontario, his family has, for three generations, been
entirely financially dependent on the land for their livelihoods and as such,
are concerned about the affect pesticide use in this part of the province would
have on communities to the north. For
example, migratory birds, which they hunt, come in contact with pesticides and
he wondered what the cumulative effects of those poisons have on him. Mr. Theriault made note of the fact that
pesticide use affects aboriginal and non-aboriginal people living in the north,
that choose to harvest these animals, a traditional food source, upon which
many are still dependent. He believed
that Council has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of unneeded toxins
entering the waterways, wildlife, and ultimately it’s citizens. He left the committee with the following
question: “If scientists have
conflicting views regarding the health and environmental effects of pesticides
and the fact the government must pay the health care costs of its citizens in
the event they become very sick from exposure to such chemicals, why would
Council continue to allow the cosmetic use of pesticides, when they are not
absolutely required?” Additional
details of his presentation are included in his submission, which is held on
file.
* The committee was
also circulated an e-mail from Fred McLennan President, Hunt Club Community Organization
via Councillor McRae, in which he disputes Mr. Costa’s comments about the
Association discussing urban vs. rural and golf
courses. A copy of the e-mail is held
on file.
Paul Poisson, Fédération des sociétés d’horticulture et d’écologie
du Québec and Vice-President of Groupe Vertdure
indicated that he was not for or against the proposed by-law. However, he did note that it is possible for
a lawn care company not to use 2-4D; his company has not used 2-4D for the last
5 years. The company has worked with
Laval University to fund research to test new products, approaches, and
alternatives. Such alternatives include
the use of corn gluten, beet juice, and the products developed by McGill
University and results show that such alternatives are 25-80% as effective as
2-4D. Mr. Poisson went on to state that
the alternatives involve more work and additional costs, but he maintained that
such options could be profitable for a company. He explained that such change requires support from clients and
education is essential. The results of
the Laval University study would be published in 2006.
Mr. Poisson responded to questions from Councillors Doucet and
Bédard with respect to adapting to the pesticide regulations in Québec and
remaining a profitable company. He
noted that his company replaced its entire fleet of vehicles and re-trained its
400 workers.
Rob Bourne presented
a video submission from Dan Ackeson who
could not attend the meeting in person.
Mr. Akeson was particularly concerned that the by-law would specifically
affect lawn care companies, even though these businesses only use a fraction of
the over 400 registered pesticides which have been cleared for use by the
PMRA. He suggested that until such time
as a definitive study has been made of these chemicals and their use, it makes
more sense to continue to let the professionals apply them. He urged committee members to be cautious in
their approach.
Peter Bugden,
principal owner and President, Nutri-Lawn, Halifax gave a PowerPoint
presentation and spoke about their by-law, which was fully implemented in 2003
after two years of property registration and education. He indicated that his customers have not
been very receptive to the alternative programs he has offered, and his
revenues and customer base are down by more than 30% and 40% respectively. He also stated that the by-law has damaged
the business pace of professional lawn care operators, as there are no
restrictions on the sale of pesticides at the retail level. He was concerned about the increased sales
of pesticides through retail outlets because their staff are not trained to
give advice on the usage of such products and most homeowners are not informed
enough to comprehend their proper application methods. He further explained that while the by-law
gives provision to the industry to control in the event of infestations, one of
the problems they have struggled with is coming up with acceptable threshold
levels to indicate when a product may be applied.
Councillor Cullen remarked that
according to Statistics Canada, there has been an increase (in Montreal) in the
number of lawn care companies and their employees, even after the
implementation of the by-law.
When asked to comment on the fact the industry would not be able to
use these products, but that they would still be available from retail stores,
Mr. Jacobs clarified that the proposed by-law does not ban pesticides,
but allows for a phase-in and still allows for pesticide use in an
infestation. Further, the by-law would
create a level playing field in that the same regulations that would apply to
the industry would also apply to the homeowner.
Councillor Brooks asked the A/Medical Officer of Health to provide
him with a copy of those longitudinal studies.
In response to his remark about the absence of his reduction
achievement, Mr. Jacobs advised that this had been noted in the staff report
submitted this pas May. He explained
that the issue staff had with the way that percentage was represented was that
it was a decrease from what was on the label so it was not a decrease in the
usage of pesticides, but rather, a decrease in a particular ingredient.
François Savard, a qualified math and science
teacher and former head of the environmental protection office at the Ottawa
International Airport from 1990 to 2001, spoke in support of the proposed
by-law. He discussed chlorinated
synthetic pesticides and their effect on the human brain, hormones and
gonads. He also noted that synthetic
pesticides disrupt hormonal and nervous system balance in animals and insects.
Michael Robinson, Green Unlimited outlined his duties and daily
routine as a lawn care technician and assured committee that much care and
preparation goes into the application, both before and during spraying. His main goal as a lawn technician is to
make customers happy by supplying a safe and healthy lawn, which can only be done
with certain tools to be effective. Mr.
Robinson concluded by stating that if a proposed by-law comes into effect, he
would lose a crucial tool to keep customers happy and protect their investment.
Steven Brooks, Green Unlimited spoke against the proposed
by-law, citing his wife’s allergies to many plants and pollens. He outlined the symptoms including sneezing,
scratchy eyes, sleeplessness, headaches and other ailments. Mr. Brooks suggested that every year there
are more and more unkempt lawns covered with weeds, which only serve to add noxious
pollens to the air.
Dr. Laurence Sobczak spoke against the by-law using as
examples a nervous breakdown he suffered at the age of 40 and his battle with
lymphoma cancer, which developed at age 65.
Dr. Sobczak suggested that pesticides did not cause his illnesses,
rather that other toxic chemicals, which are found in his drinking water or
naturally within the human body, caused them.
The delegation concluded by stating that pesticides are insignificant as
a pollutant to the immune system, explaining that the biggest factors are the
chlorine found in drinking water and the toxic agents in the human body, such
as the candita fungus.
Martha Weber provided an overview of
her written submission and explained that most weeds were introduced by early
settlers as favourite foods and for medicinal purposes. She spoke in favour of the proposed by-law,
adding that grassy lawns are about the only place in built-up areas where water
can percolate into the ground water system.
A copy of her presentation is held on file.
Doug King, Make It Green Garden
Centre explained
that his garden centre does not sell synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. He discussed organic alternatives and
herbicide damage. Make It Green Garden
Centre estimates the direct cost of consulting with customers about herbicide
and pesticide damaged plants at $5,000 per year. He added that synthetic pesticides should only be used when the
benefits should outweigh the risks – such as saving a valuable tree through
injection or painting. Organic
solutions are available for any application, which requires spraying and in
many cases would outperform the synthetic alternative. Mr. King recommended that the City produce a
set of guidelines in conjunction with qualified professionals that will aid in
the determination of when a treatment is necessary, what can be used and the
allowable application methods. He
concluded by stating his support for a total ban on the cosmetic use of
synthetic pesticides. A copy of his
submission is held on file.
Mike Christie spoke in support of the by-law,
discussing his involvement on this issue since 2002. He suggested that many delegations that have appeared on this
issue today (as in 2002) are not residents of Ottawa. He spoke against the Alternative by-law set out in Document 5 of
the report and indicated that organic alternatives have been used for 15 years
by the Ontario Landscape Alliance. Mr. Christie discussed how other Canadian
cities have implemented successful pesticide by-laws in part because of the
change of attitude. With a strong by-law,
he believed attitudes would change in Ottawa and he was not receptive to the
suggestion of phasing-in the by-law. He
closed by stating that staff have not been given enough credit today and that
the work they have done has been so phenomenal over the last three years, that
people are convinced there is already a by-law.
This ended the public delegation portion of the meeting. Of the 113 delegations presenting, 74 were
in favour of the by-law and 38 were opposed.
In addition to submissions mentioned above, members of the Committee and
Council received numerous correspondences by the public and others, a complete
list of which is held on file.
That Council:
1. Enact the bylaw attached in 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. education and warnings in 2006, and
charges as appropriate starting in 2007.
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. Consult with local golf courses on
developing an annual reporting system of pesticide use on their properties and
on strategies to reduce pesticide use, to report to HRSS Committee by June
2006.
Councillor Stavinga stated that many of the
public are only just seeing this report and there are conflicting opinions of
whether or not to support the by-law.
She recognized that people are saying there is no solid scientific
evidence to support the need and that there are sufficient safeguards already
in place at the federal and provincial levels.
Dr. Salisbury advised that the PMRA expects all other levels of
government to be involved in the overall regulations of any pesticide
by-law. Approval would be advocating to
the PMRA that municipalities play a role in this particular control of
pesticides.
The councillor suggested that if there is a
body of evidence that there are cumulative impacts of pesticides on human
health and the environment or that the City is supporting a ban, there is still
the question of why some areas are excluded, i.e., golf courses and rural
areas. When asked why these exemptions
were in place, Mr. Jacobs advised that staff are looking at whether or not the
risk outweighs the benefits, or visa versa.
For the purposes of allowing pesticide use for agricultural purposes,
the benefits do outweigh the risks, and there are limits enforced by the PMRA
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on all pesticides used on
foodstuffs. He reminded committee that
it is the opinion of the medical community that benefit does not outweigh the
risk. With respect to the provision for
the golf courses, he advised that this was a direction from Council to look at
alternatives. These businesses use
licensed applicators when they do apply and they have agreed to work with staff
towards the reduction of pesticides as this program goes forward. He confirmed that they have to present
information on a regular basis to the City on how they are meeting targets on
their own.
Councillor Stavinga noted that Stittsville is
deemed to be part of the urban area and would therefore not be exempted from
the by-law. However, nearby communities
in the same area are part of the rural area and would therefore have an
opportunity for further dialogue because they may be in favour of the
by-law. Mr. Jacobs explained that the
reason the rural area was exempted was to allow for the full discussion of this
matter as part of the Rural Summit process.
He confirmed that even with the by-law in place, there is still an
opportunity to revisit it at any time if new information is presented. The Solicitor, Jerry Bellomo, added that
there must be some rationale for defining the urban and rural areas, both of
which are defined in the Official Plan.
The councillor noted that even with a by-law in
place, the products are still legal and would still be available in
stores. She thought there might be an
increase in the sale of pesticides if a by-law comes into effect and she
inquired what the experience has been in other municipalities as well as what
the City would do to ensure the by-law would be implemented successfully. Mr. Jacobs believed that following a period
of adjustment, people would follow the provisions of the by-law for the most
part. He did not anticipate that people
would rush out to buy the product because they would still be allowed to use
the services of a lawn care company, or apply the product on their own. When asked what people would do to take care
of their flowers, for example, the Director explained that the by-law allows
for the use of pesticides where there is an infestation and there is a
potential for the loss of the flower or plant.
He added that the by-law suggests people use alternative means before
using a product that is hazardous. With
regards to agricultural and rural use, he explained that one is food related
and it is necessary, whereas this by-law refers to private property.
The councillor further inquired whether it is
staff’s intention to establish a methodology framework to measure the success
of the by-law, once implemented. Mr.
Jacobs indicated that its success would be measured through opinion research
and statistical surveys, carried out on a regular basis. The suggestion was made that if the City
wanted to do this more accurately, it would engage the services of a university
(as they did in Halifax) to carry out a third-party survey with a scientific
basis. Councillor Stavinga asked if
staff would be supportive to explore that kind of direction and that any
associated costs would be reported back to the committee and Council. The Director reiterated the fact that they
are trying to initiate a by-law to change the use of products and the way that
change is measured would be of value, but there would likely be budget
implications to do so.
Councillor Cullen noted that the report
recommends exempting golf courses from the by-law and the suggestion made by
one of the delegations that there ought to be a system put in place to keep
track of the amount of pesticides being applied on golf courses and the
possibility of working with them to develop a pesticide reduction strategy. He asked whether the notion was to leave
golf courses entirely alone or was the expectation that they had a role to play
also. Mr. Jacobs advised that the
exemption includes a report to Council on a regular basis with respect to what
they are applying and why. Based on
this information, the councillor suggested Recommendation 3 of his Motion was
redundant and he deleted it from the Motion.
With the imposition of any legislation or
by-law, Councillor Bédard asked what measures staff have taken to increase the
number of inspectors that would have to deal with this. The Director of By-law Services advised that
they have funds set aside to focus on this by-law alone and would not take away
from the enforcement of other by-laws.
Six summer students would be hired to back-fill some of the jobs left
vacant by full-time staff carrying out the enforcement of this by-law. She confirmed that additional resources
would not be required in the long run.
In developing the guidelines referenced in Recommendation 2, the
councillor believed staff should consider limiting the control of infestation
to the professionals because concern has been expressed by many of the
delegations about overuse of the product.
He believed these could be limited by ensuring that only professionals
do the infestation control. Mr. Bellomo
suggested this could be reviewed by the advisory panel, but there may be a
legal issue because these products are available in stores and there may be
more difficulty of preventing their use of them to control an infestation.
The councillor reiterated however, that if the
objective were to limit the amount of pesticides, allowing people to apply
pesticides on their own would be totally unacceptable. Mr. Jacobs advised that the product is sold
with proper application instructions and to require a licensed applicator would
be similar to having to hire a professional to use a power tool if someone
wanted to do some home renovations themselves.
In this case, they ensure the products are only used in accordance with
the by-law. Councillor Bédard believed
this would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise because the City is trying
to control the overuse of the product.
Mr. Bellomo suggested that the advisory panel could review those
guidelines and staff would discuss it with them and look at the legalities of
the by-law.
Councillor Deans was concerned about having to
suspend the rules if the report was to go forward next week and suggested it
not rise to Council until 9 November.
The Solicitor explained that if the committee report were distributed
today, there would not be a requirement to suspend the rules since it would be
delivered five calendar days in advance of the meeting next week. The councillor recommended the committee
approve this direction, especially in view of repeated concerns that the
community was not fully consulted. Mr.
Jacobs reminded committee about the number of times staff have reported to the
committee and Council in the past and reiterated that prior to discussions in
2002, there was consultation where the by-law was discussed as well as other
initiatives. With respect to current
consultation, he indicated that in 2002 and leading up to today, there have
been seven public meetings and over the last three years there have been 250
working groups and seminars. This, in
addition to the advertising campaign, brochures/ pamphlets and information on
the City’s website, constituted the consultation with the community. The councillor noted, however, that once
staff prepared the by-law there was no public consultation held with the
community. Mr. Jacobs advised that
staff was acting on a decision made by Council in 2002 and as part of the
ongoing dialogue, the by-law was discussed.
Mr. Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager,
interjected that staff have viewed this as a three-year consultation process
and he confirmed this has been a very public issue through the media, the
education campaign and this has been validated by the number of people who
spoke to the committee yesterday. He
was not sure what value there would be in continuing the lobbying efforts since
many people in the community have formed their opinions, which have been
validated in the polls.
Councillor Deans went on to state however, that
there is no community consensus. She
was concerned when, in 2002, Council set some very aggressive targets and now,
three years later, she did not think the majority of the public have been
brought along to fully support a by-law.
She was concerned that even after spending $1M over the last three years
on an education campaign, the City has been unable to change public
attitude. Mr. Kanellakos explained
that what has changed since 2002 is that there are 61 more municipalities or
towns that have implemented similar by-laws.
Further, there is consensus in the medical community about the effects
of pesticides on health and he believed people have caught up to the
issue. He concurred that education did
not get the results staff hoped, but he thought staff were also clear and it
has been validated by other organizations that the by-law is needed in addition
to education.
Councillor Deans questioned whether staff had
reviewed the Halifax data collection methodology referred to by Dr. Robin
Walker, or how they measured the success or failure of the bylaw. When advised they had not, the councillor
asked that staff provide committee with the methodology before this report
rises to Council and how effective it has been.
Councillor Deans referred to the comment made
that someone would use more and asked how much research staff has done that
would take Council to the conclusion that a by-law would achieve
reductions. Mr. Jacobs responded by
stating the by-laws implemented in other municipalities are relatively new and
staff need to monitor the progress and, if necessary, revisit it, in order to
achieve the efficiency of the by-law.
He confirmed that the City of Halifax is achieving reductions. The councillor was interested to see what
Halifax has in terms of how they measured the reduction because the committee
heard a lot of evidence that was contradictory and she found it difficult to
judge which side was painting an accurate picture. She asked that staff provide that information to all councillors. Also, she asked staff to provide
clarification on the comment made by Mr. Chernushenko about a ‘green’ bid
being a major factor in the success of cities vying to host the next
Commonwealth Games. Mr. Jacobs
indicated staff would follow-up with the delegation with respect to that
policy.
Councillor Feltmate asked who would be on the
advisory panel and staff indicated there would be representatives from Planning
and Growth Management - Policy Division, Community and Protective Services –
Health Division and By-law Services, as well as representatives of licensed
applicators and horticulturists. He did
not think would be further consultation, once this panel is constituted. He explained that they would be the experts
in the field and their input is what is needed to fine-tune the guidelines so
it is clear what the expectations would be.
Mr. Bellomo informed the committee that as a
result of issues raised at the meeting yesterday, a revised by-law was prepared
(and was distributed), which provides technical changes to clarify some of the
terminology. The committee was satisfied
with the revised by-law.
When asked to comment on Recommendation 1(d) of
Councillor Cullen’s Motion vs. staff Recommendation 4 (a-c), Ms. Jones advised
that based on best practices staff have undertaken before, they know that some
of their best successes in ensuring they have a successful by-law is to be able
to do effective education once a by-law has been introduced. To illustrate, she explained that in 2006
staff would not utilize any additional enforcement resources, but would simply
record the calls of concerns of pesticide application contrary to the
requirements of the by-law and staff would send an information package in the
mail to the homeowner and then wait until the following year before issuing
warnings and charges as appropriate.
That portion of Councillor Cullen’s Motion moves that process up a year
in advance. It was her preference that
the committee support staff Recommendation 4 instead, because it would give the
Department the time to do the effective education and to promote compliance. She also confirmed that Recommendation 4
would be preferable to Recommendation 5a.
The councillor proposed an amendment to Councillor Cullen’s Motion,
therefore, to replace his Recommendation 1(d) with staff Recommendation 4.
In presenting his Motion (and in particular
Recommendation 1(d), Councillor Cullen reiterated the fact that the idea of a
by-law has been around for several years and there has been clear medical
evidence presented that would encourage the City to pursue this avenue. He believed there was a need for this by-law
in order to protect communities. He was
prepared to accept that once the by-law is put in place, that people be allowed
the time to learn what alternatives can be used; however, he did not believe it
was logical, in the year of enforcement (as recommended by staff) to allow half
the growing season to elapse before fining people.
Councillor Bédard recognized that the community
is confused about this issue and that more education is necessary to ensure
people understand what is being proposed in order to obtain compliance. As the Board of Health, Council must take a
stand on specific issues that relate to the health of the community at
large. He believed people oppose the
whole concept of pesticide controls because it is a contrary message being sent
when those same products are still available in stores. He hoped that with further education, people
would eventually realize the harmful effects of pesticides and the fact that applying
those products is inappropriate social behaviour. He believed there was a need to get people to reduce pesticide
use on their own, but eventually, a by-law would have to come into play to
ensure the eventual elimination of these products for cosmetic purposes. He believed that in order to ensure the City
follows the logic behind this kind of limitation on pesticides, it should say
that the only people who really should be using this kind of a product, since
the City thinks they are dangerous, are people in the industry.
Councillor Doucet stated that the City has
created an economic and social model that is so destructive that society cannot
continue to live for profit. He
acknowledged that the medical doctors are united in their thoughts that all
pesticides are destructive and he agreed with the medical community that the
consequences of using pesticides are diseases.
He strongly supported implementation of the by-law.
Councillor Stavinga expressed frustration by
the way the process has evolved and she agreed that the more people can be
educated, the more they will buy into the by-law. However, the City’s education program failed in its mandate to
turn the public around and did a poor job in communicating effectively
alternative turf management practices.
She recognized that the City itself has stopped or reduced dramatically
the maintenance on it’s own property and remarked that when residents see the
state of some City parks and boulevards, they do not want that to happen to
their property. However, she also
recognized that over the last few years there has been more scientific evidence
presented on the effects of pesticides on human health and the
environment. And, while she understood
that there could be no conclusive proof, the views and concerns expressed by
numerous health organizations cannot be ignored. She acknowledged the vulnerable populations and was persuaded by
the fact this is not an issue of individual property rights and is an issue of
creating a healthy environment.
Therefore, if Council has the opportunity to reduce exposure and to
support policies that can avoid the distribution of hazardous materials into
the community, it should move forward on that.
In addition to her previous amendment, she
asked the committee to support an additional amendment to Councillor Cullen’s
Recommendation 1(c) to add “without a permit” (as appears in the staff
recommendation) because she was not prepared to create an additional
bureaucracy about this.
Councillor Feltmate was sympathetic to the
people who want a beautiful lawn and garden and she appreciated the beauty of a
well-maintained lawn. She agreed with
the comment made previously that what the City has done to its suburban areas
has not been well received, but acknowledged this was as a result of budget
cuts made last year. Over the past
three years, she has supported the education campaign, and consultations with
her community reflect what is reported in the Decima survey, that more people
are in favour of the by-law. She
recognized that as part of anything new brought forward, there would be
resistance from some, but she reiterated the fact that Council must recognize
what is important and listen to the community because there is a wide variety
of views. Just as what has been learned
about smoking, she believed that chemicals being sprayed on lawns are not only
harming the people whose lawn is being sprayed, but also the people around
them. She recognized that this by-law
would protect the children and the people who are vulnerable in the community.
With regards to the Motion to refer the matter
to Council in November, Mr. Kanellakos explained that on that date the 2006
budget is to be tabled and it is staff’s preference to deal with this report at
the next meeting (26 October), which has a more reasonable agenda.
Councillor Deans shared the goal of other
members to reduce the non-essential use of cosmetic pesticides. However, even after three years of public
education, and based on the comments received yesterday, she still felt very
uncomfortable about it because she did not believe the City achieved the public
education it was directed to do three years ago. Therefore, she believed the City needed to do more assessment of
what went wrong with the education campaign and why the City failed to deliver
the message effectively in the community, or perhaps, whether it failed to hear
what the public was saying. The
councillor felt that public acceptance is necessary in order to have an
effective by-law. She seriously
questioned whether or not there was a better way to reduce cosmetic pesticide
use and whether there is a more moderate approach to bring the community along
so in the end success would be achieved.
The Committee voted separately on Councillor
Cullen’s Motion as follows:
Moved by A. Cullen
That Council:
1. Enact the bylaw attached in 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;
CARRIED,
with Councillors Chiarelli and Deans dissenting
b. exception for
agriculture, golf courses and other essential non-cosmetic uses;
CARRIED
In consideration of part (c) of the Motion and the
amendment proposed by Councillor Stavinga, Councillor Cullen asked that the
committee adopt his Recommendation 1(c) because it does not say there is going
to be permits, but his Recommendation 2 refers to the advisory panel that would
be looking at infestations and the process.
By adopting his recommendation, the committee would not be taking a
stand one way or the other on permits.
He did not think that if the notion is that these infestations are going
to be treated as the last resort and there is not going to be a means of lawn
maintenance to apply pesticides, then Council has to allow the panel an
opportunity to look at how someone gets an application in to deal with an
infestation. He argued that if the
committee adopts staff Recommendation 1(c), it implies that Council is never
going to consider this and he preferred that the advisory panel be given the
opporunity to review this and then the committee can see what they recommend.
When asked why staff was recommending “without a
permit” in Recommendation 1(c), Ms. Jones explained that because it is a
by-law, that is an introduction and they do not feel there is a need to add an
additional onerous process on the application of infestation. Staff would work to educate the public on
how it should be done. She indicated that
Halifax had applied a permit system but it did not work and they discovered
that the by-law is more successful without.
She suggested that if a permit system does not work, staff would report
back with the requirement to have one, but she hoped public acceptance could be
obtained without having to have a permit.
Councillor Stavinga understood that even with staff
Recommendation 1(c), in Recommendation 2 there are four options, one of which
has been captured in Councillor Cullen’s Motion. She understood that in supporting staff Recommendation 1(c),
there was still the referral of the guidelines to the advisory panel and staff
have indicated that this is probably not the best way, but if, in the
development of these guidelines and the implementation in 2006 Council finds it
problematic it could still be looked at at any point in time. She asked the committee to support staff
Recommendation 1(c) because it does not preclude further consideration at some
point in time.
Moved by J. Stavinga
That the committee replace
Recommendation 1(c) in the aforementioned Motion with staff Recommendation
1(c).
LOST
YEAS (4): D. Deans, P. Feltmate, J. Stavinga, D. Holmes
NAYS (4): A. Cullen, G. Bédard, R. Chiarelli, C. Doucet
The committee then considered the next portion of
Councillor Cullen’s Motion as follows:
c. allow the treatment of infestations
on lawns;
CARRIED
The
committee approved the report Recommendation 1(d) as follows, instead of
Councillor Cullen’s Recommendation 1(d):
d. an
effective date of January 1, 2006;
In considering Recommendation 1(d) being
proposed by Councillor Cullen, as opposed to Recommendation 4 (a-c) of the
staff report, Ms. Jones indicated that the difference between the two is that
if the committee were to approve Councillor Cullen’s Motion, the Department
would hire 6 additional enforcement officers for 2006, who would go out and
respond to complaints and issue warnings.
On the other hand, staff Recommendation 4 requires no additional
enforcement officers being hired and simply involves the recording of
complaints and the sending of information material in 2006.
Based on the latter information, Councillor
Chiarelli asked how people, who do not realize they are using a chemical
pesticide, would find out that what they’re using is not permitted under the
by-law. He did not think many people
would actually request an information package and suggested this information be
included in the information campaign once the by-law is approved. The Director indicated that By-law Services
would work with Development Services staff to ensure that when the by-law comes
into effect, more than just the requirements of the by-law would be transmitted
to the public. The councillor believed
that if Council wants the best chance of this working, there should at least be
people who are knowledgeable about what it is they are supposed to do.
Councillor Bédard hoped staff would work
directly with the industry as part of the information campaign because they
would recognize that if this is the way the City is going, then they would want
to continue to sell their products and they too can educate their customers.
The Chair suggested staff could use as an
example, the brochures produced in Montreal when they were implementing their
by law – such information included what the municipality was going to do in
year one and subsequent years, et cetera, until only organic compounds are
used. She asked whether there would be
education that talks about the by-law and what pesticides are, in addition to what
gets mailed out to the person using the pesticides. Ms. Jones confirmed this, noting that staff would have a
comprehensive communications package on top of what By-law Services does to
ensure the public is aware of what the requirements are. She confirmed staff would be communicating
as they have for the past three years about the issues around pesticide
application, adding that it would be focused around what the by-law requires.
Moved by J. Stavinga
That the Committee approve the
following Recommendation 4 of the report, instead of Councillor Cullen’s
Recommendation 1(d):
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.
CARRIED
YEAS (7): G. Bédard, R. Chiarelli, C. Doucet, D. Deans, P. Feltmate, J.
Stavinga, D. Holmes
NAYS (1) A. Cullen
The committee approved Recommendation 2 of Councillor Cullen’s Motion
as follows:
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.
CARRIED
Moved by J. Stavinga
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.
CARRIED
Moved by D. Deans
That Council consideration of
the proposed by-law pertaining to the cosmetic use of pesticides on private
property be referred to the 9 November 2005 meeting of Ottawa City Council.
LOST
YEAS (4): R. Chiarelli, D. Deans, P. Feltmate, J.
Stavinga
NAYS (4): A. Cullen, G. Bédard, C. Doucet, D.
Holmes
When it was proposed that the report
be referred to the Council meeting of October 26, the Solicitor advised that it
was clearly the intent that if it did not get referred to the November meeting
that it would be brought forward on 26 October. He advised against taking a separate vote on referral.
That the Committee
recommend Council approve the report, as amended by the foregoing.
CARRIED, with Councillor Chiarelli
and Deans dissenting
Note: As a result of the Committee’s actions,
Recommendations 3 and 5 of the staff report were determined to be redundant.
COMMUNITY AND
PROTECTIVE SERVICES
SERVICES COMMUNAUTAIRES ET DE PROTECTION
HOUSING
LOGEMENT
2. ACTION OTTAWA 2005
ACTION OTTAWA 2005
ACS2005-CPS-HOU-0009 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
That the Health, Recreation and Social
Services Committee approve the addition of the following item for consideration
by the committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to section 81(3) of the procedure
by-law (being by-law no. 2003-589):
The recommendations of the October 14 Action Ottawa Selection Committee.
CARRIED
That Health Recreation and
Social Services Committee recommend that City Council:
1. Approve the recommendations of the
October 14, 2005 Action Ottawa Selection committee.
2. Recommend
that Federal and Provincial Affordable Housing Program (AHP) Funds, City
capital funds (up to $7.3 million) and grants in lieu of building permit fees,
relief from development fees and planning fees be awarded sufficient to fund
the selected proposals, subject to any conditions made by the Selection
committee and subject to Council enacting a Municipal Housing Project
Facilities By-law for each project.
3. Direct
staff to negotiate Municipal Housing Project Facilities Agreements with the
selected proponents subject to the terms and conditions of the September 14,
2005 Action Ottawa RFP, the Selection Committee recommendations of October 14,
2005, the provisions of the Municipal Housing Project Facilities By-law (2005),
and the limits of the City municipal capital facility contributions.
4. Upon
successful negotiation of project facilities agreements with the proponents,
authorize the Director of Legal Services to proceed directly to Council to
authorize the project specific Municipal Housing Project Facilities by-laws by
way of placing the by-laws on the Order of the Day for enactment, within the
limits set by negotiated agreements, the recommendations in this report, and
the Municipal Housing Project Facilities By-law (2005).
5. Upon passing project specific by-laws,
delegate authority to the Director of the Housing Branch to execute the project
specific Municipal Housing Project Facilities agreements, up to the limit of
the Director’s spending authority.
6. Direct
staff to negotiate the sale of the property located at Parkin Circle, subject
to the provision of the right to first refusal to recover the property in the
event of sale, and subject to the provisions of the negotiated Municipal
Housing Project Facilities agreement and in accordance with the Municipal
Housing Project Facilities By-law (2005).
CARRIED
3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM - HOUSING ALLOWANCES AND CAPITAL GRANTS
ALLOCATIONS DE LOGEMENT ET SUBVENTIONS
D’IMMOBILISATIONS - PROGRAMME DE LOGEMENT ABORDABLE
ACS2005-CPS-HOU-0013 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
3. Direct staff to continue to pursue all
avenues for funding for affordable housing from both the Federal and Provincial
governments, but that the preference for capital subsidies that support the
acquisition or development of permanently affordable housing that conveys
long-term benefits to the community be communicated to both levels of
government.
That the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council:
1. Direct staff to advise the Province of
the City of Ottawa’s interest in participating in the revised Affordable
Housing Program (AHP), including the revised Capital Grants program and the new
Housing Allowance Program; and
2. Direct staff to bring forward a report
at the earliest opportunity documenting any additional capital funding that may
be required to enable full participation in the Capital Grants program and/or
any program changes to Action Ottawa that may be required and/or any
administrative considerations associated with participating in the Housing
Allowance component of the AHP.
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The meeting adjourned
at 11:50 p.m. on Thursday, 20 October.
The meeting adjourned
at 6:10 p.m. on Friday, 21 October.
Original signed by Original
signed by
R. Nelson Diane
Holmes
Committee Coordinator Chair
