Another British Columbian Municipality Considers Pesticide Ban

The City of New Westminster is joining other Lower Mainland municipalities in its support of banning cosmetic pesticides on residential properties.

City council recently directed staff to undertake public consultation on the proposed pesticide-use bylaw.

"The draft pesticide-use bylaw was developed with the intent to prohibit the use of pesticides for non-essential (landscaping) purposes in order to protect human health and the environment," said a staff report. "A bylaw accompanied by a sound education program will support the behaviour change required to move towards more sustainable management practices in the community."

According to the proposed bylaw, several exceptions apply: the use or application of a permitted pesticide; the use of a pesticide in response to a danger to human or animal health; the use of a pesticide to disinfect a public or private swimming pool, wading pool, whirlpool or ornamental water fountain; the use of a biological control agent to destroy pests; the use or application of a pesticide to a building or the inside of a building; and the use of a pesticide to prevent the deterioration of hard landscapes.

Jennifer Lukianchuk, the city's environmental coordinator, said Burnaby, Port Moody, Vancouver, West Vancouver, North Vancouver and Maple Ridge have adopted pesticide bylaws and others have adopted pesticide-use education campaigns.

"Other municipalities are slowly coming on board," Lukianchuk said. "I think we are midway."

Coun. Lorrie Williams believes the message should be taken to schools, as young people can take the message home. "It would be another way to persuade our citizens to comply."

Staff recommended that the bylaw come into force two years after its adoption, in order to allow for the development and implementation of an education campaign and to give residents a chance to adjust to new approaches of managing pests before full enforcement of the bylaw takes effect. During the phase-in period, the city would provide warnings and education to the public.

According to a staff report, reports of pesticide violations are typically reactive in nature as they're usually based on complaints from residents.

"I like the bylaw," said Coun. Bill Harper. "I think we do need some public process here. I think two years is a little too much."

Harper suggested it would be better to implement the bylaw in March 2010 rather than waiting until 2011.

On Monday, city council directed staff to undertake public consultation on the proposed bylaw and schedule implementation for March 1, 2010.

Coun. Bob Osterman said he'd like the bylaw to contain some flexibility in case pesticides should be needed for some "natural environmental disaster."

He cited the European chafer problem as an example and noted that drastic weather changes could see different situations arising in the future.

Council asked staff to ensure the bylaw provides the use of appropriate substances in events involving human health and significant economic impact events.

Harper questioned why there is such a "stumbling block" in getting the pesticide rules to apply to industrial and commercial properties.

He cited examples such as industrial parks, gas stations with flower beds and industrial sites and noted they "should have to comply but they don't" need to do so under current legislation.

According to a staff report, all pesticides, such as herbicides, insecticides or fungicides, that are sold, used, stored, transported and disposed of in Canada have been regulated by either the federal or provincial governments.

In January 2004, the province gave local governments the right to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements specifically in relation to "cosmetic pesticide use" in the maintenance of outdoor trees, shrubs, flowers, ornamental pants and turf on residential properties and public land.

Lukianchuk said the provincial legislation doesn't give municipalities jurisdiction over pesticide use on institutional, commercial or industrial lands.