Report to: General Committee Date: April 2, 2007

SUBJECT: Report on Regulating the Non-Essential Use of Pesticides

PREPARED BY: Mavis Urquhart, Manager, Environmental Leadership

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council instruct staff to proceed with a community public consultation program respecting pesticide regulation in the Town of Markham;

AND THAT the community consultation program follow Option 2, as outlined in this report, which includes drafting of a by-law restricting the non-essential use of pesticides in Markham, for presentation to Council and consultation with the public;

AND THAT Staff be authorized to do all things necessary to give effect to the above.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Not applicable

The Town of Markham has been discussing the matter of the non-essential use of pesticides for some time. On September 26, 2006 Markham Council adopted a staff report recommending that a public information meeting on the subject be held on October 26, 2006, with a panel of four experts (two in favour of regulating the non-essential use of pesticides, two against) as well as a number of technical resource persons. Seventy-five persons attended the meeting and 26 persons requested notice of future public meetings. Beate Bowron and Gary Davidson from Partners in Community Building were retained as moderators of the public information meeting and were asked to report on the meeting and to provide recommendations, based on the comments received, regarding a possible course of action Markham might take. This report incorporates follow up discussions and information contained in the consultant’s report.

Advance notice of this meeting has been provided to all those persons who requested it following the public meeting and to those persons who submitted letters requesting exemptions from any future by-law. Also, to those persons who have written to the Town in regard to this matter.

October 26, 2006 Public Information Meeting

The October 26, 2006 public information meeting was advertised widely. Some 200 notices were sent to various individuals, groups and organizations and advertisements were placed on the Town’s website and on the Town Pages of the local newspapers. The meeting was held at the Markham Theatre from 7.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. Seventy-five people attended. The meeting was also audio webcast on Markham’s website. The complete Minutes of the meeting are attached as Appendix A to this report.

[Then] Deputy Mayor Frank Scarpitti brought greetings from the Town. During a review of the meeting’s format and agenda (see Appendix E), it was emphasized that no decisions would be made that evening and that the sole purpose of the meeting was to exchange information and obtain initial feedback. Attendees were reminded that they could include their names on a mailing list to be notified of further discussions on the issue. Ms Mavis Urquhart, Manager, Environmental Leadership, Town of Markham, provided an overview of the Town’s approach to the reduction of pesticide use, the regulatory framework and comparative information from other municipalities.

Mr. Gideon Foreman, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Mr. Mark MacKenzie, President, Organic Landscape Alliance made presentations in favour of Markham adopting regulations banning the use of non-essential pesticides. Mr. Lorne Hepworth, President, Urban Pest Management Council and Mr. Ken Paveley, Program Coordinator, Integrated Pest Management Council and IPM Turf Specialist for Landscape Ontario made presentations advocating against Markham adopting additional regulations.

An extended question and answer session followed the presentations. At the end of the meeting the audience was advised that they could submit further comments in writing (deadline November 3, 2006) and that a report on the public information meeting and possible next steps would be before the new Markham Council early in 2007. (All those attendees from the public meeting who requested further notification have been advised of this meeting). As expected, members of the audience became quite engaged during the question and answer session. Twenty-one questions/comments were received, ranging from clarification of information presented and debate about “the facts” regarding the safety of pesticides to calls for protecting the jobs associated with the lawn care industry and pleas to safeguard human health and the environment. The Minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix A and the written comments are contained in Appendix B.

A total of twenty-six comments were received in writing during and after the public information meeting. Sixteen were in favour of Markham adopting a by-law regulating the non-essential use of pesticides, and the Ontario College of Family Physicians re-submitted their 2002 letter to the Toronto Board of Health in support of a Markham by-law. One submission was in opposition and another one wanted to see pesticide-free demonstration gardens before any by-law was adopted. Three submissions requested an exemption from any future by-law in Markham. They are Hydro One, a golf club and a lawn bowling club (Appendix C). The remaining submissions included a comment, a question and requests to be on the mailing list for discussions in the future. (Answers to the submitted question and a question raised at the public meeting are contained in Appendix D).

Six of the submissions voiced their displeasure with the relative over-representation of the lawn care industry in the audience and, therefore, in the question and answer session. There was a feeling that Markham residents need much more education on the subject. Even though this public information meeting did not attract a large number of Markham residents, it achieved its objective of beginning the public discussion about whether or not to introduce a by-law on the non-essential use of pesticides in Markham.

As outlined above, the outcome of Markham’s first public information meeting on the non-essential use of pesticides was limited, because of the relatively small number of residents who attended. However, the residents who did submit opinions verbally and in writing were clearly in favour of regulating pesticides in Markham, just as the representatives of the lawn care industry were clearly opposed to adding further regulations to the existing system.

If Markham Council is interested in continuing the public discussion on the matter, there are two basic options that can be pursued. The overall direction taken in either Option should be to maximize participation by Markham residents in the discussion of all of the issues - including the form of any by-law (should one be adopted), and the education and implementation programs.

OPTION ONE – Undertake Additional Consultation

The first option is to continue to focus on the principle of whether and how to restrict the non-essential use of pesticides in Markham. This option would expand the public consultation process to include a wider portion of Markham residents through geographically based community meetings across the municipality (in areas such as Thornhill, Markham, Milliken and the Civic Centre, which are the areas used for public consultation on external driveways).

Concurrently, input from the lawn care industry representatives who service Markham, as well as local retailers of pesticide products, would be sought. The public consultation process could be augmented by a survey of Markham residents on whether and how pesticides should be regulated in the Town.

Depending upon the outcome of this process, a draft by-law may be developed, together with an education program and phased-in implementation program, which would then be subject to public review, prior to adoption of the final by-law by Council. It is likely that the public consultation process would be very helpful in building awareness and consensus among Markham residents on how to deal with the issues. The estimated time it would take from the beginning of the public process to the adoption of a final by-law would be about 18 months.

OPTION TWO – Prepare Draft By-law for Consultation

The second option is for Staff to draft a by-law restricting the non-essential use of pesticides in Markham, outlining possible exceptions. This draft by-law would be presented to Council along with a proposed education and phased-in implementation program. Provided this meets Council approval, it would then be the focus of a public consultation process (again, using geographic areas mentioned in Option One). Depending upon the outcome of the public consultation process, a by-law may subsequently be presented to Council for adoption. There is an expectation that a larger proportion of Markham residents would become involved if this Option were to be pursued, since there would be something concrete to discuss. Because of this, it may not be necessary to add a residential survey. Again, the lawn care industry representatives would be consulted, as well as local retailers of pesticide products.

The creation of any draft by-law and “draft” implementation process would have to be preceded by internal stakeholder discussions involving appropriate Markham staff to achieve practical and workable results. Should Markham decide to proceed with a By-law to regulate non-essential pesticide use, Markham staff could run a public awareness campaign concurrently while consulting on the nature of the by-law. Since the preparation of the draft by-law would precede the public process, the total time it would take from the beginning of the public process to the adoption of the final by-law would be shorter than in Option 1.

CONCLUSIONS:

The October 26, 2006 public information meeting on the non-essential use of pesticides in Markham, while limited in attendance by Markham residents, has demonstrated a strong interest in the matter from the residents who did attend, as well as from the lawn care industry. The question for Markham Council now is to decide on is what course of action, if any, it wishes to take to further public discussion on the issue, to expand public awareness and to involve a larger proportion of residents in the debate. This report sets out 2 Options.

Option One may build a greater degree of awareness and consensus - but it will take longer than Option Two. Also, fewer Markham residents and others may participate in the process, because of the lack of something concrete to focus on. This has been the experience in other municipalities, such as Newmarket and Richmond Hill.

Option Two may advance the process more quickly and attract a greater number of Markham residents to the public process because the draft by-law, in combination with a proposed education and implementation program, provides a stronger focus for debate.

It is the recommendation of Staff that Council proceed with Option 2.

Next Steps

Depending upon Council’s directions Strategic Services staff would work with an internal staff team including Legal, By-law Enforcement, Communications and Operations staff to develop a program for community public consultation, as well as any proposed by-law and education/implementation programs.