Canada's Supreme Court Allows Lawn-Pesticide Ban
The court said the leafy Montreal suburb of Hudson -- in the French-speaking province of Quebec -- had been within its rights when in 1991 it became the first Canadian municipality to outlaw the use of pesticides on lawns.
Click Here to Add Comment
Subject: Canada's Supreme Court Allows Lawn-Pesticide Ban...............................
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:13:15 -0400
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker,
I thought you might like to read an article entitled: Canada's Supreme
Court Allows Lawn-Pesticide Ban. by David Ljunggren
Thursday, June 28, 2001 2:35 p.m. EDT
OTTAWA (Reuters) - In a landmark decision that
environmentalists hailed as "a great step forward" for the health of
Canadians, the country's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that municipalities
across Canada have the right to ban the residential use of pesticides.
The court said the leafy Montreal suburb of Hudson -- in
the French-speaking province of Quebec -- had been within its rights when in
1991 it became the first Canadian municipality to outlaw the use of pesticides
on lawns.
Crucially, the court also said the Quebec legislation that
Hudson used to implement the ban was very similar to laws in many other parts of
Canada. In effect, this gives local authorities all over the country the right
to follow suit.
"We're thrilled. We've had municipalities across
Canada just waiting with their fingers crossed for this decision," said
Angela Rickman, head of the pesticide reduction campaign at the Sierra Club of
Canada environmental group.
"A number of other communities will now be able to
move ahead without worrying about negative financial consequences. I think it's
a great step forward for the health of Canadians," she told Reuters.
Some 36 other Quebec towns, as well as the city of Halifax,
Nova Scotia, have enacted similar bans since 1991.
Opponents say pesticides can affect the brain and nerve
development of children, can block or mimic natural hormones and can harm
household pets.
Landscapers disagreed, saying a judicious use of pesticides
should be allowed. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by two Quebec
lawn-care companies, who said Hudson had been wrong to block the use of
chemicals that had been approved by federal and provincial authorities.
The court disagreed, saying in a unanimous decision that
"our common future, that of every Canadian community, depends on a healthy
environment."
Municipal authorities are closest to the everyday lives of
citizens and most responsive to their needs, it added.
"Based on the distinction between essential and
nonessential uses of pesticides, it is reasonable to conclude that the town
bylaw's purpose is to minimize the use of allegedly harmful pesticides in order
to promote the health of its inhabitants," it said.
The 1991 Hudson bylaw did not apply to farmland and gave
golf courses a five-year exemption.
Officials at the two lawn-care companies at the center of
the case said they were studying the court's decision and maintained the ban was
discriminatory.
"The whole industry has made a collective effort to
fight the discriminatory by-law, which, by its nature, targets the lawn-care
industry in Hudson," the companies Services des espaces verts and Chewlawn
said in a statement faxed to the companies argued that the Supreme Court ruling
should not apply to other provinces because it was only a local matter.
The court noted the Quebec legislation was very similar to
laws in such powerful provinces as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, as
well as in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and two of the three Arctic
territories.
Rickman said Canada's regulations on pesticides use are
outdated and urgently need to be changed.
"This ruling raises public awareness of the health and
environmental consequences of pesticide use. Until now, a lot of Canadians have
assumed that because the government permits pesticides, they were safe. A lot of
people don't read the warning labels," she said.
(Additional reporting by Patrick White in Quebec City)
Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.
Well Mr. Helliker,
I dream of a day when all of your "registered" POISONS will be
banned and safe and far more efffective alternatives will be used to actually
control pest problems. This WILL
happen eventually, even if we have to do it one village at a time!
Golda Meir once noted: "I can honestly say that I was never affected
by the question of the success of an undertaking.
If I felt it was the right thing to do, I was for it regardless of the
possible outcome." I know that
I am doing the right thing and I am willing to pay the price.
Are you?
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.