next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 22:58:01 -0400 (AST)
From: Maureen Reynolds <ax168@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Lance Makmillen <ad059@chebucto.ns.ca>
Cc: "David M. Wimberly" <ag487@chebucto.ns.ca>,
"Theresa A. Thomas" <as838@chebucto.ns.ca>,
Patricia Phelan <paphelan@ns.sympatico.ca>,
"Owen,Rochelle [Dartmouth]" <Rochelle.Owen@EC.GC.CA>,
Cathy McDonald <ax260@chebucto.ns.ca>,
Daniel Haran <ah813@chebucto.ns.ca>,
"Env. Health Task Force -- Dr. Roy Fox" <roy.fox@dal.ca>,
Lynn Doucette <doucette@ns.sympatico.ca>,
Liz Delaney <delaney@nbnet.nb.ca>, jonathan.fox@dal.ca,
ianj@nsgeu.ns.ca, Windhorse Farm <windhors@fox.nstn.ca>
Subject: pesticide jurisdiction being removed from municpalities in the shole province. We need you to speak!
Please distribute this as widely as possible,
Not only are they stopping the HRM from getting jurisdiction over
pesticides,they are stopping all the Municipalities in the entire
province. We need people to speak against this new bill, Bill 47, that the
Liberal Government just put to 1st reading. In order to speak against it
for 15 minutes (If enough of us do , perhaps it will never get to 3rd
reading!)you must call Gordon Hebb at 424 8941 and ask to speak to
the Bill 47.
Here is the relevant text:
Page 76 of Bill 47:
(j) regulation of the use of pesticides for the maintenance of outdoor
trees, shrubs, flowers, other ornamental plants and rturf on the part of
aproperty used for residential purposes and on propertyof the
municipality and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,
this by-law may
j
(i require the posting of notices when pesticides are to be so
used and regulate the form, manner and time of the notice and the area in
whichthe noticemust be posted,
(ii) establish a registration scheme, that isopen tothe public i
whicha resident who has a medical reason for objecting t pesticides
beingsoused mayfile with the clerk an objection to pesticides being so
used in the vicinity of the property on which the person resides,
(iii) require that notices be served on the residents of properties
registered pursuant to the registration scheme within the distance
specitfied in the by-law when pesticides are to be so used and regulate
the form, time and manner of thenotice, and
(iv) specify the circumstnces in which the posting or serving of noticies
is not required or the prohibition does not apply,
bur a by-law may not prohibit the use of pesticides and a by-law pursuant
to this clause does not apply to property used for agricultural or
forestry purposes.
Here is my reaction to the Bill
A REPORT ON THE NEW CHANGES TO THE PESTICIDE JURISDICTION INCLUDED IN
BILL 47 INITIATED BY THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.
There are real problems with the new pesticide clause for the NS
Municipalities Act presented by the Liberal Government:
.
1 The HRM Council voted at least twice that they wanted
jurisdiction over pesticides but they have been forced now into a position
of compliance by being told that if they didn't give up on jurisdiction
over pesticides then they would get no other much needed changes to the
act. Other communities already have bylaws -thes will be voided if Bill 47
becaomes law and no municipality will have the power to make a pesticide
bylaw!
2 Passing this bill would only allow require advance warning that
then legalizes the ability of making another- person's house unsafe for
their occupancy for an unlimited amount of time. Is this a warnign systemn
or legalized threats?
3 This Bill makes no reference to the fact that there are no safe
places for most of the population to go (and one out of twenty are
affected). If you go to another property that is unregistered you may be
exposed to pesticides there.
4 The municipalities would have no rights to stop residents
spraying in anemergency situation such as an effected person being in bed with
pneumonia, broken back etc. (Don't forget people sensitive to pesticides
will probably be too sensitive to stay a long time in the hospital). This
year even with advance warning negotiated after much effort with the lawn
companies , I have been out of my home for 30 days. That is one day in 12.
Most people with chronic health problems are usually not even well 1 in 12
days , that means you are putting the poor and ill out of their homes to
bear the costs themselves.
5 There is a law about the right of access to public places for
those with physical disabilities and here it is being denied, therefore
cosmetic pesticides use should be totally eliminated in Public places such
a hospitals, hotels, Federal and Provincial city lands , Banks Etc.
6 Houses near mailboxes stop people from getting their mail when
they spray their lawns. How can the city regulate for that with this new
bill?
.
7 Houses around parks and schools should not be using pesticides
during school term as children are coming home with asthma attacks etc
when lawns around schools are sprayed. There should be at least a space of
time of many days.
8 There is no place in this new bill to allow compensation for
moving out of ones' home .First, you should not have to move out but if
poor legislation demands you must, then it is for many days each time
someone sprays by your home and the cost at $55/night can run to$2000
dollars and more especially if you have no car or lose business revenues
if your home houses a business.(sometimes the only possibility of the
chemically sensitive.)
Compensation would naturally limit amount of pesticide use and the victim
would not have to bear all the costs. The real cost of someone's lawn care
is now being borne by the rest of the community in cost of increased
medical care and cost of getting out of ones home and this is making the
victims pay.
9 There is no limit to the number of times a single neighbour can
put you out of your home or to the number of times the whole neighbourhood
can put you out of your home. (For me this year it was 30 days, for a
friend last year it was 60. Is even one day acceptable?)
10 Granular pesticides around a sensitive person should never be
allowed because of the unpredictability of the off gassing and the
unpredictability of length of time that takes - this is not covered in
the new bill.
11 Under this flawed legislation, if you want to be notified of a
pesticide spraying to protect your children, you are not allowed. You must
wait until you or your children are ill. People should not have to wait
until they are ill to keep pesticides out of their air. This Bill only
allows protection once you or your child is sick !
12 This allows no expansion of the jurisdiction of pesticides ever
in the future. The new legislation states " a bylaw made pursuant to this
clause may not prohibit the use of pesticides ...."
this statement has to go!
13 There is no control over things that are happening now like
spraying a lawn will parked on a school cross walk during the time
children are coming to school, washing pesticide tanks in lakes where
children swim, allowing pesticide spills to be cleaned up in stores by
teens without protective clothes or information on how pesticides should
be handled.
14 Homes around waterways and wells are still allowed to
contaminate water!
Please remember there is at least 4 times more cosmetic pesticide used in
close packed residential areas than in the well controlled agriculture
areas. And we are not looking for any controls over use of agriculture or
forestry pesticides in Bill one.
At a meeting with the Ombudsman, the Minister of the Environment , Hon.
Wayne Adams did not meet with us but we were assured by the Regional
Director of the Environment, Mr Oldrieve that the Province would make a
warning system but if the HRM wanted to do more they would willingly give
up jurisdiction to them.
The Liberal Party , tabled Bill one then numbered Bill 22, at the last
winter sitting of the House, and are now refusing to support it giving
such reasons like "it will lower the profit of the local hardware stores!"
Can this compare with the safety of the population?
John F. Hamm, Leader, Progressive Conservative Party of NS and Jim De
Wolfe, MLA Pictou East, PC Environment Critic wrote me a letter on June
23, 1998 stating " This letter is to reassure you that the Progressive
Conservative Caucus will support the referral of the bill through Second
Reading and on to Law Amendments in order that individuals and groups may
have the opportunity to speak to the Bill. The two other parties are
aware of this position and we look forward to the bill (Bill ONE), Act to
Amend Chapter #3 of the Acts of 1995, the Halifax Regional Municipality
Act ..and we look forward to the bill being called for debate." (This
refers to the original Bill 1)
The NDP stand behind Bill 1 as it was drafted by the Municipality and
presented at the last sitting of the house.
How allowing pesticides into our homes violates the idea of the Provincial
Environment Act:.
1 All Municipalities are permitted by statute to beable to impose a
stricter restriction than the provincial government on any toxin ...
6(5)" A Bylaw, regulation or authorization is not in conflict or
inconsistent with this Act by reason only that it imposes a restriction or
requires a condition for the protection of the environment in excess of
those required by the Act"
2 The Act is supposed to protect and use the precautionary principle when
making decisions
1 The purpose of the Environmental Act is " To support and promote
protection, enhancement, and prudent use of the environment while
recognizing the following goals
a) maintaining environmental protection to the integrity
of....human health"
b)sustaining development....
ii using the precautionary principle will be used
in decision making so that where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation"
3The polluter not the victim is supposed to pay
C)polluter pay principle confirming the responsibility of
anyone who creates and adverse effect on the environment to take remedial
action and pay for the costs of that action"
4This concerns not only the safety of the person but there enjoyment of
their life and property
In the Interpretation of the Act
C) an adverse effect means an effect that impairs or
damages the environment, including an adverse effect respecting the health
of humans or the reasonable enjoyment of life or property."
I have been forced out of my home 30 days this summer because of
the toxic drift of cosmetic lawn pesticides. Is that reasonable enjoyment
of life or property?
5) The government is supposed to act quickly and fairly with education and
regulation
e)the Government having a catalyst role in areas of environmental
education, environmental emergency
I Providing a responsive, effective, fair, timely and
efficient administrative and regulatory system.
The Environmental Minister has not met with those concerned. This
has been a problem that Bernie Boudreau was asked to help solve over 2
years ago. A notification system without other changes is useless to most
and makes a mockery out of out protection agencies.
"The irony of watering down pesticide legislation on the same day that it
is revealed that children's cancers have risen 20% in Nova Scotia should
not be lost on the public, " said Elizabeth May, Sierra Club of Canada
Director. "It is time to ban the cosmetic use of cancer causing
substances on our parks, lawns and gardens".
Like restriction of cigarette smoking in public places we must make
continuous progress towards a safe community, a community free of toxic
cosmetic products and this will need education and regulation which
evolves out of a communities needs. The Municipality is closer to our
needs and has indeed agreed to try and help. Please give them the
jurisdiction to do so. This will allow public debate (a newspaper poll
showed 2/3 of the call ins wanted a pesticide bylaw.)
The changes that the Liberal party is promoting fundamentally alter the
idea pesticide jurisdiction . People should be made safe in their homes.
Properties are very close together in urban areas, and pesticides drift
and cannot be avoided. It is not acceptable to require people to move out
of their homes.
Respectfully submitted.
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects