Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Chronology of Federal Pesticide Regulation in Canada...And More

Chronology of Federal Pesticide Regulation in Canada

Last year Mr. Pat Martin, MP for Winnipeg Centre, captured the current
state of federal pesticide regulation by stating:

“We also believe and are calling for the nationwide ban on the
cosmetic, non-essential, non-agricultural use of pesticides. The
provinces of Ontario and Quebec have now done it but that is only in
the absence of leadership and direction from the federal government
that should have done it without having to wait for other
jurisdictions to do its regulatory job for it.”

For a chronology of Canada’s Pest Control Products Act and actions
towards banning the cosmetic use of pesticides, please click here.

http://www.flora.org/healthyottawa/chronology.htm

===========================

Actions of Canada’s Major Retailers Concerning Pest Control Products
http://www.flora.org/healthyottawa/retailer.htm

===========================

10/03/09

The Summerside Journal Pioneer

Extend the pesticide ban

Editor,
It’s good that P.E.I. may finally get a cosmetic pesticide ban, but
the ban must also apply to P.E.I.’s golf courses. As a province,
P.E.I. has a heavy concentration of golf courses, probably the
greatest per capita in the country. Golf courses are everywhere, from
Tignish to Souris, and most, if not all, use plenty of pesticides.

A few golf courses are completely within city and municipal
boundaries, and are literally within metres of front and backyards
where children and their pets play. Even golf courses in rural areas
of the province are very close to many homes, waterways, grazing
animals and wildlife.

It is well known that pesticides are applied to golf courses at higher
concentrations per acre than almost any other type of land, including
farmland. It is also well known that pesticides on golf courses, like
pesticides on lawns and fields, contaminate water, land, people and
animals. Their use on golf courses serves primarily a cosmetic or an
aesthetic purpose.

If P.E.I. wants to improve its image from being a toxic province, the
regulations covering the cosmetic pesticide ban must extend to golf
courses. The economic argument to allow an exemption is not a good
one.

There are examples of pesticide-free golf courses. The world’s oldest
and most renowned golf course, St. Andrews Old Course in Scotland, has
not allowed pesticides to touch its grasses for more than 17 years.

Let’s go all the way on banning cosmetic pesticides on P.E.I. Apply
the ban to the Island’s 26 or more golf courses.

Leo Broderick,
Charlottetown

http://www.journalpioneer.com/index.cfm?sid=230471&sc=123

========================

March 9th, 2009
Cosmetic Pesticides, an idea whose day has gone.
Posted by Cyn in community, health, environment, photos, legislation,
nature

no-pesticide-sign-sm.jpg


ISLANDERS CAN REJOICE!

PEI will be among the other leaders in Canada. Leaders….not followers.

Quebec, Ontario and now PEI, with New Brunswick ready to make the
change soon. There are many people on PEI who have been working so
hard for a long period of time toward this end. Congratulations to all
those groups and individuals who did the research, made their
presentations, educated the public and kept the fight going.

Soon, very soon, this scene will be but history:
2207161411_135cb265bc.jpg


http://www.cynthiadunsford.com/

========================

March 9th, 2009
NJN Network

The rest of the story
P.E.I. banning cosmetic pesticides

with 4 comments
MLA Cynthia Dunsford, long time champion of pesticide ban

MLA Cynthia Dunsford, long time champion of pesticide ban
By Stephen Pate, NJN Network, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada, March 9,
2009
with a story from CBC

Hats off to Cynthia Dunsford and the new major domo at Environment
Minister Richard Brown for announcing a ban on cosmetic pesticides.
Well Richard didn’t announce it: he leaked it to CBC. Cynthia put a
lot of energy into this and ended up with egg on her face when ex-
Environment Minister George Webster axed the plan. Leave to our
renegade Richard to push it through and rescue one of the dumbest
governments in PEI history. Thank you Richard and thank you Cynthia.
Now would you kick some butt over there and get seniors wheelchair
coverage?

CBC

The P.E.I. government intends to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides
starting in 2010. Environment Minister Richard Brown told CBC News
Friday that regulations are being drawn up, and they will be
straightforward. “A ban is a ban. Those products will not be allowed
to be sold on P.E.I.,” said Brown.

“We’re not putting it in this year, because the owners of all the
stores and all the big shopping areas have purchased their inventory,
and we’re saying we’re not going to ban it for this year, but you’re
on notice for next year.”

Brown said Islanders were very clear about what they wanted, in their
presentations to a legislative committee looking into lawn chemicals
in 2007. The Island government is working with Ontario and New
Brunswick, as well, to come up with common regulations so people
aren’t driving over the bridge to buy pesticides.

Katherine Dewar of the P.E.I. Environmental Health Co-operative, one
of the groups that’s been pushing for a ban, welcomed the news.

“This is a no-brainer. You don’t need cosmetic pesticides. There’s no
rationale to say that they’re needed, because you can have good lawns
without cosmetic pesticides,” said Dewar.

“If you can take this kind of pollutant out of the air, the water and
the soil, it’s a very easy thing for people to do. It’s just the
sensible thing to do.”

Written by Stephen Pate

http://www.njnnetwork.com/njn/?p=5642

========================

03/23/2009

Monterey County Herald

Dennis the Menace goes pesticide free

By KEVIN HOWE
Herald Staff Writer

Dennis the Menace Park and other playgrounds for small children in
Monterey have gone pesticide and herbicide-free.

The city Parks Division has posted a sign at Dennis the Menace
playground advising that the park has not had pesticides applied on
its grounds since February 2008.

Monterey adopted an integrated pest management program in 2007 aimed
at reducing the use of chemical herbicides, according to parks
superintendent Doug Stafford.

Read more about this story in Tuesday's Herald.

http://www.montereyherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=11978715&siteId=570

========================

03/24/2009

Keep chemicals off the grass
Monterey parks quit using pesticides, herbicides
By KEVIN HOWE
Herald Staff Writer

Dennis the Menace Park and other playgrounds for small children in
Monterey have gone pesticide and herbicide-free.

The city Parks Division has posted a sign at Dennis the Menace
playground advising that the park has not had pesticides applied on
its grounds since February 2008.

Monterey adopted an integrated pest management program in 2007 aimed
at reducing the use of chemical herbicides, according to parks
superintendent Doug Stafford.

Since then, he said, the city's use of the herbicide Roundup has been
reduced by half and the Parks Division is continuing to use fewer
chemicals citywide, shifting to organic fertilizers and herbicides,
such as clove oil and lemongrass oil.

The Parks Division, Stafford added, has for many years used mulching
and weed cloth in place of chemicals, and has adopted a policy not to
apply chemicals within 30 feet of any tot lot.

"We have also made a great effort to adjust the irrigation systems to
make sure that only those areas that need water receive water so
unwanted weeds don't crop up," Stafford said, adding, "We have
continued to convert much of the spray-irrigated areas to drip
irrigation."

A number of concerned citizens have urged the Monterey City Council in
the past to cease using herbicides and pesticides on city property.

"The traditional practice of using chemicals because they cost less
and take less labor time is no longer the accepted solution," said
city spokeswoman Anne McGrath. "Even though it costs

more money to buy organic pesticide material and to hand-hoe weeds,
the city is trying to strike a balance among all these factors and
continue to reduce the use of pest control materials in our parks and
playgrounds."

Kevin Howe may be reached at 646-4416 or khowe@montereyherald.com.

http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_11983249

========================

March 23, 2009

leaderpost.com

Semi catches fire near Halbrite

REGINA — A semi tractor and trailer that smouldered on the side of
Highway 39 overnight as well as herbicide it spilled are to be cleaned
up after the rig caught fire Sunday evening between Weyburn and
Estevan.

The driver was travelling on Highway 39 when he noticed something
wrong with his unit. The tractor trailer was about eight kilometres
southeast of Halbrite when it caught on fire.

Midale’s fire department as well as Weyburn’s responded to the blaze,
which RCMP say was quickly extinguished.

Some herbicide is known to have spilled in the west ditch.
Saskatchewan Environment has been contacted about the spill.

The owners of the truck will be responsible for the clean-up of the
truck. Weyburn RCMP would not release the name or location of the
owners.

The cause of the fire has not yet been determined. No one was injured
in the incident.
© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Semi+catches+fire+near+Halbrite/1418933/story.html

========================

March 24, 2009

The Leader-Post

Owners responsible for cleanup

A cleanup of a semi tractor and trailer that smouldered on the side of
Highway 39 on Sunday night as well as herbicide it spilled was
expected on Monday after the rig caught fire between Weyburn and
Estevan.

The driver was travelling on Highway 39 Sunday evening when he noticed
something wrong with his unit. The tractor trailer was about eight
kilometres south-east of Halbrite when it caught on fire.

Midale and Weyburn fire departments responded to the blaze, which RCMP
say was quickly extinguished.

Some herbicide is known to have spilled in the west ditch.
Saskatchewan Environment has been contacted about the spill.

The owners of the truck will be responsible for the cleanup of the
truck. Weyburn RCMP would not release the name or location of the
owners.

The cause of the fire has not yet been determined. No one was injured
in the incident.

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Owners+responsible+cleanup/1421098/story.html

========================

NAFTA - Chapter 11, 2,4-D & Standing Committee on International Trade

--------------------------

NOTICE OF MEETING
Standing Committee on International Trade

Meeting No. 10
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Room 209, West Block
(613-996-1817)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3758885&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2

--------------------------

40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Mrs. Deborah Lyons:
We certainly support the meetings in the sense that, as the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we work very
closely with both the Mexican and the U.S. governments, and we
maintain that bilateral relationship. But this particular structure
that has been put in place is led by the two departments I just
mentioned.

[Translation]
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Serge Cardin:
I referred to the North American Security and Prosperity
Partnership. It was a well-known fact that many issues regarding
comparable regulations in the two countries were being negotiated.
People often feared that there could be a general lowering of
regulatory standards as a result. For example, we know that under
chapter 11, Dow AgroSciences is suing Quebec with respect to a
specific product, 2,4D, which is a powerful herbicide. Quebec has
banned this herbicide under its regulations.

The issue here is our relationship with the United States, NAFTA,
chapter 11, and so on. In the past, Mr. Obama said that he wanted to
re-negotiate NAFTA. What is the department's position regarding the
legal action taken under chapter 11 of NAFTA, something that is also
happening to a greater or lesser extent with the other agreements we
have signed with the United States? Does the department think it can
reach an agreement with the United States to put a stop to all these
legal actions taken under chapter 11?

+ -(0940)
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Don Stephenson:
I would like to start by saying that there are discussions
underway between Canada and the United States—and Martin could discuss
this further—regarding regulatory harmonization. At the moment, these
discussions are focused mainly on the standing working groups under
NAFTA. This is not an area of intense activity. At the moment, we are
looking at industries where regulatory harmonization could be helpful.
So far, there has not been a great deal of progress on these matters.
However, I do not think there is a trend to make regulations less
stringent, as you were mentioning. Some people fear that this might
happen in the discussions about regulatory harmonization. However,
there have been no indications of this sort. The fact remains that
people in industry on both sides of the border are interested in
reducing their costs by having similar of identical regulations. That
is the context of our work.

As regards chapter 11, no decision has been made with respect to
the case you mentioned. It has not yet been proven that the complaint
under chapter 11 had an influence on either provincial or federal
regulations. At the moment, there are no discussions regarding a
possible change to chapter 11 of NAFTA.

I could ask Martin to comment quickly on the discussions regarding
regulatory harmonization under NAFTA.

[English]
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Martin Moen (Director, North America Commercial Affairs,
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade):
Perhaps I could supplement that somewhat. There are two areas
where we're engaged in regulatory cooperation discussions with the
United States. One is in the context of the SPP through the regulatory
cooperation framework. The other is in the context of the NAFTA work
plan, where we're working on sectors and looking at areas where there
are ways to either share data or harmonize regulations. Right now the
sector we're most active in is swine, but other sectors are being
considered and there's work potential there.

The principle here is certainly not to lower regulations. Rather,
where there are differences that are not making a substantial
difference to the intent of the regulations...to look at those and to
see if they can be modified, or whether we can recognize each other's
regulations.

It's that sort of work that's under way in these two contexts.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Thank you.

Monsieur Cardin.


Mr. Peter Julian:
Now that the motion is coming forward, no.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
All right. There you go.

With that, I'm going to now begin with the first item, and
hopefully we'll get to the second item as well. We have about 15
minutes.

I'm going to ask Mr. Julian to move his motion and speak to it
briefly.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Peter Julian:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll speak very briefly to it.

As everyone around the table knows, Dow AgroSciences has filed,
under chapter 11, an investor state lawsuit that challenges the ban on
pesticides in Quebec. This is something that I think all parties have
raised in question period. The intent of the motion is to have one
meeting on this, to which those who have expressed concerns about this
would be invited. Potentially we'd also have government
representatives to explain how the government is intervening on this
chapter 11 case.

I'm suggesting that it's an issue of important public policy that
has ramifications beyond Quebec. It could mean implications for other
cities that have pesticide bans, like the City of Toronto. For those
reasons I'd like to offer this as a topic for a stand-alone meeting of
this committee.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Can you read it into the record?
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Peter Julian:
Sure:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade hold a two-hour
meeting with representatives of civil society and other groups
concerned by the filing of a Notice of Intent by Dow AgroSciences
under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, with regards to the banning of lawn and
garden pesticides in the province of Quebec, which would include the
David Suzuki Foundation, Toxic Free Canada, Environmental Defence,
Equiterre and the City of Montreal.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Thank you.

Comments?

Mr. Brison.
next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Scott Brison:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm actually interested in chapter 11 and this specific case. I'm
also interested in the Newfoundland government case with
AbitibiBowater. I'm not certain whether Mr. Julian would be amenable
to this, but perhaps this would be a constructive amendment. They're
both chapter 11 issues. I think we can all benefit from a deepened
understanding of chapter 11 in two distinct cases, but at least
understand the implications of chapter 11.

Further, in terms of witnesses, I'd suggest someone like Gordon
Ritchie, one of the negotiators of the FTA, as somebody who could
help, and Barry Appleton, an international trade lawyer who's won
cases on the chapter 11 situation while representing clients. It may
be beneficial to us to understand the implications of chapter 11 in
two distinct cases that are before the public right now.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Thank you.

Mr. Harris.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Richard Harris:
Surprisingly, I have some appreciation of Mr. Julian's motion. I
think it's a subject that we're going to have to deal with, because we
do have the ban already, I think in Toronto, and now Quebec, and it's
for sure that this is going to continue across Canada. I would be
interested in hearing witnesses on this so that I can get a better
understanding of it and how it affects us with the free trade
agreements, etc.

I guess I'm wondering what date or what timing Mr. Julian had for
his motion. Is there a particular time?

We have a lot of other stuff that we want to do.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Monsieur Cardin, did you have a comment?

[Translation]
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Serge Cardin:
There would have been just as much support for the motion if I had
presented it myself.

I cannot help making a link between this specific case and what
the representatives from the European Union told us last week about
standards. At some point, countries must establish standards and
comply with them in their international relations. These standards may
have to do with the environment or health, two areas that are impacted
indirectly.

It is important to analyze chapter 11 based on this example. This
is also an opportunity to evaluate what we should be doing to protect
the standards we should establish as a society. International trade
must not allow private companies to interfere directly with these
standards. We have to be able to uphold these standards. It is
therefore relevant to discuss this. This discussion will take up the
full two hours.

+ -(1045)

[English]
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Fine, thank you.

Perhaps I could just interrupt for one minute and get the
attention of the committee. It seems to me there could be a consensus
here, with a constructive amendment proposed by Mr. Brison--if that
were to be accepted by Mr. Julian. I think we do have an eye on our
schedule and our time. This may just fold in with our next discussion,
and that is our draft committee schedule.

Could I ask the committee if we could maybe get a straw vote at
this point? We might perhaps consider this in one meeting, bringing a
number of witnesses, if there are two sides to the issue, but more in
terms of information for the committee. We would do that on the first
meeting back after break week. That would be the week of March 23 to
March 27, so it would be March 24. I think that would give the clerks
time to get witnesses to come in.

In any event, I don't want to lead the committee too far. I was
just getting the sense that, in regard to time, this might be a
consensus for people.

Did you have something to add, Mr. Keddy?
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question for Mr. Julian and Mr.
Brison.

The only question I have...and I would expect that we're going to
stay to our parameters here. Our parameters are trade. So how does
chapter 11 work? It's not about the efficacy of 2,4-D versus other
pesticides. We keep the questions to trade, not to the environment or
biology. We keep to how chapter 11 works, and whether countries or
provinces have a right to ban products that they feel should be
banned. We stick to the issue of trade, not to the debate over
pesticides.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
That's a good point.

Mr. Brison, and then Mr. Julian--very briefly, if you might.
next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Scott Brison:
Further to the point, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have a
totally different situation, but a similar challenge to chapter 11. I
want to have a better understanding of what the weaknesses of chapter
11 are and what we ought to be looking at in terms of future trade
agreements.

Although I think all of our witnesses are good witnesses, and
from organizations that I have great respect for, I think the
principle is not whether or not pesticides are bad. In terms of our
deliberations, the principle is whether or not chapter 11 is impeding
the capacity for sovereign governments within Canada, federally or
provincially, to make decisions that are legitimate to defending their
interests.

I want to study chapter 11. I want to study this issue and the
Newfoundland issue. I'm wondering whether there's a way to start with
a briefing from the department on chapter 11. Maybe we could have a
couple of experts on chapter 11 and a couple of cases, including these
two current ones. I'm wondering whether that may have more benefit.

On the specific motion where you get very granular in terms of
specific witnesses, I think we agree in principle, but we're not
necessarily sure. If we do a two-hour session with just these
witnesses, it will be more focused on the environment side as opposed
to the chapter 11 side. I support in principle the idea of doing
chapter 11, although I think the witnesses in this case are heavily
focused on the environmental substance as opposed to the trade
substance, which is what I'd like us to drill down on. We'd probably
agree on outcomes.

+ -(1050)
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
I will ask you to comment, Mr. Julian, after my comments. Let me
just step in here.

I'm sensing that we might just amend the motion by eliminating the
“granular” part, as Mr. Brison referred to it, and saying only that
the standing committee hold a two-hour meeting on chapter 11 of NAFTA.
I think you could then add that the meeting would take specific
interest in the filing of a notice of intent by Dow AgroSciences, and
the Newfoundland and Labrador issue.

I think that would be the motion, and then we could, just by
consensus and the lists that are provided to the clerk, sort out a
balanced two-hour meeting for discussion in that regard. But that's
just a suggestion.

Mr. Julian.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Peter Julian:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think very clearly we would want to see the City of Montreal and
Équiterre here. I think they would be taking discussions that are
focused on the trade element and the decision by the City of Montreal
to support the pesticide ban.

I agree with Mr. Keddy and Mr. Brison that we're focusing on
chapter 11 and not on the advisability or not of a pesticide ban. The
democratic decision I think is the one that's impacted here.

Mr. Brison's case is quite compelling around Newfoundland and
Labrador, but I would suggest that perhaps we'll be looking at more
than two hours if we want to bring in all these elements. I think the
Newfoundland and Labrador case on its own is a quite compelling one.
We can look at extended hours, perhaps a three-hour meeting, if we
wanted to work both in or over two meetings.

I think we all agree with the principle of dealing with chapter 11
and agree on having witnesses who address the chapter 11 provisions
specifically. I'm flexible on some of the witnesses, but not on all of
them. I think a couple definitely need to be here.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
We have a list. First is Monsieur Cardin, and then Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Serge Cardin:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the discussion should really focus on chapter 11. Of
course, the idea came to us more quickly as a result of the Dow
AgroSciences situation, but if we add other dimensions of the issue, I
think we could easily discuss all of the issues in two hours. Since we
are studying Canada-U.S. relations, it is particularly relevant to
take a very close look at chapter 11 using specific examples. It is
quite likely that the meeting could last more than two hours.

[English]
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
It sounds as though we have a growing consensus here. The only
question is how much time we will have.

Mr. Keddy, go ahead.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Gerald Keddy:
Thank you.

My only suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a two-hour
meeting. We schedule an hour on Dow Chemical in Quebec, an hour on
Newfoundland, and if we find that's not sufficient, then we can talk
about another one.

When you have a motion that gets beyond one meeting, then you're
getting into a study by the committee, which is fairly in depth. My
suggestion is that if we do an hour for each and we find that's
insufficient, then we can come back, after one two-hour meeting, and
try to find another meeting.

+ -(1055)
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
I don't wish to cut off debate here, but we are running out of
time.

I think we're going to get a consensus. I think what was expressed
by Mr. Keddy probably does sum up where we are.

Mr. Silva.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Mario Silva:
Can you possibly also move, at the same time as the motion, the
draft committee's schedule? I'd like to adopt that as well. I think it
works perfectly fine within the motion.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Yes, I do think we have a pretty good consensus on the draft
committee's schedule, but we'll get to that, Mr. Silva, as soon as we
wrap this up.

I think we're okay with this. Perhaps I can just suggest this and
see if we can get it done in the next couple of minutes: that the
Standing Committee on International Trade hold a two-hour meeting on
chapter 11 of the NAFTA, with particular reference to the notice of
intent by Dow AgroSciences regarding the banning of lawn and garden
pesticides in the province of Quebec, and the Newfoundland and
Labrador AbitibiBowater matter....

Give me a nice way to put that, Mr. Brison.
next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Scott Brison:
Well, it's the current chapter 11 challenge by the Province of
Newfoundland with regard to the--
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
And the current...that's right. Okay, very good.

I think, then, we have to limit it to that, and leave it to the
clerk to get witnesses. We will take note that Mr. Julian has
specifically requested Équiterre and the City of Montreal. Other than
that, please submit your list to the clerk. The clerk will determine
whom we get to.

We will go with one meeting on that matter. If it needs to
be...the committee will so determine thereafter. This meeting will be
on March 24.

Mr. Julian, are you okay with that?
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Peter Julian:
Well, I think I understood the wording. Did you mention Équiterre
and the City of Montreal?
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
No, I didn't; I mentioned it following. I just said that it was an
interest to get those two specifically, Équiterre and the City of
Montreal. I would rather not put any witnesses in the motion, but I
certainly have given direction to the clerk to add those two
specifically.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Peter Julian:
I'll accept that as a friendly amendment from you, Mr. Chair. We
can go to the vote.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
Good.

I think everybody has the content. Do I need to read it again?

No? All right.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We have such unanimity today. It's just lovely.

Now I go to Mr. Silva. He was moving acceptance of the draft
committee's schedule as amended.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Mario Silva:
Mr. Chair, on the travel to Washington April 20 to April 24, Mr.
Brison has mentioned the fact that on the 24th, which is a Friday,
it's very hard to get meetings. So maybe we can do it from the 20th to
the 23rd. That's just a minor amendment.
next intervention previous intervention

The Chair:
We don't have time to discuss it now, and this is again a draft,
but the sense was that we would probably have to leave Ottawa on the
Sunday or meet in Washington on the Sunday evening and maybe have the
first briefing on the Sunday evening.
next intervention previous intervention

Mr. Mario Silva:
I'll adopt it.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3737657&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2

========================
Warning Industry Propaganda Below
========================

NYGUIS - The Nuke-Your-Grass-Until-It-
Surrenders Industry

14/03/09

The Charlottetown Guardian

What's in a name? Getting your way - VIEWPOINT

by Rick MacLean

Pest-killing pesticides.

No. That won't do it.

Domestic pesticides.

That sounds better. 'Domestic' has such a nice ring, don't you think?
It speaks of home and family. Sitting around the kitchen table with an
apple pie, fresh from the oven, steam still rising from the crust.

Should have used domestic pesticides.

Yep. The industry that depends on people using chemicals to kill their
dandelions, and keep their little patch of the planet's Kentucky Blue
perfectly green, blew it. They should have known better.

This week, the provincial government announced it will ban cosmetic
pesticides starting in 2010.

"We're not putting it in this year because the owners of all the
stores and all the big shopping areas have purchased their inventory,"
Environment Minister Richard Brown said. "We're not going to ban it
for this year, but you're on notice for next year."

Starting next year, it's dig out the hoe and dig up the crabgrass.

The announcement marks the end of a well-run spin campaign, one that
shows grassroots groups are learning the lesson perfected by industry
and government decades ago: define the issue and you own it.

Opponents of the nuke-your-grass-until-it-surrenders industry - known
as NYGUIS, pronounced noo-gees, who knows why - did a pro job on this
one, and they deserve congratulations. Lawn pesticides probably are
bad for you. And we don't really need them.

But that's not why they won.

And other groups determined to influence public policy should take
notes on how the anti-NYGUIS campaign got its way.

° First, you need a cause people can believe in.

No problem in this case. If pesticides can kill plants, animals, fish
and fowl, they must be bad for us. Besides, we've all heard about
Agent Orange, used to strip the leaves from trees during the Vietnam
War. Cancer-causing. And we know about DDT, used to strip the bugs -
and birds, it turned out - from plants everywhere. Cancer-causing.

° Next, you need a good spokesperson.

Got it covered.

Among those leading the anti-NYGUIS charge here have been the P.E.I.
Environmental Health Co-operative and the Canadian Cancer Society in
Prince Edward Island. Lots of credibility there. Who's going to attack
a group fighting cancer?

And when someone from such a group does interviews about a survey
suggesting the public is ready for a ban, you have the perfect storm:
a cause, a credible organization and an outstanding spokesperson.

° Plus, you have numbers. Numbers are crucial because they bring the
stamp of science to the issue. And science is pretty tough to argue
with, especially with all those numbers. Who knows what they mean,
anyway?

So when the Cancer Society released the results of a poll in January
of last year, just as government was pondering the idea of jumping
onto the anti-NYGUIS bandwagon, the result was never really in doubt.

"The poll, conducted by Corporate Research Associates Inc. in November
2007, surveyed 1,101 households in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island
and Nova Scotia. Of those surveyed, 69 per cent support a ban on the
use of cosmetic pesticides, and 79 per cent believe pesticides used
for lawn and garden maintenance have the potential to pose a health
risk to people," the society said.

° Finally, you need a name to define the issue on your terms.

'Cosmetic pesticide' is perfect. It sounds so, well, vain. Is having a
perfect lawn really worth poisoning our planet? Well? Is it?

Umm....well...

Is it?

No.

The government standing committee that looked into the issue use
cosmetic pesticide. The media used it. The public used it. It defined
the debate.

Case closed. Mission accomplished.

Rick MacLean is an instructor in the journalism program at Holland
College in Charlottetown.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=232211&sc=102

========================

Mar 18, 2009

LM Direct!

The 6 sins of greenwashing

By: Ron Hall

The concept of sustainability keeps growing and is becoming a driving
force in consumers’ selection of products and services. This hasn’t
been lost on the Green Industry, as evidenced by major companies,
including TruGreen, the world’s largest lawn care company, now
offering and promoting its alternative “natural” or “organic” lawn
care program in its spring mailers and newspaper advertisements.

Whether that, and the growing success of other industry providers who
promote more “ecologically friendly” services, represents a major
change in the industry remains to be sorted out. One thing for
certain, though, companies that promote these types of services must
deliver what they promise or risk being accused of “greenwashing.”

Greenwashing is a term that’s increasingly popping up in the consumer
press. Consumer watchdog groups commonly use the term to describe
efforts by individuals or companies who inaccurately or falsely
portray the environmental benefits of their practices or products.

In December 2007, the environmental marketing company TerraChoice came
up with "The Six Sins of Greenwashing," and used them in looking at
the environmental claims being made on behalf of 1,018 common and
randomly selected consumer products. According to its criteria, 99% of
the products were guilty of greenwashing.
Beware TerraChoice’s six sins of greenwashing:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: Products such as “energy-efficient”
electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of
all environmental claims committed this sin.
2. Sin of No Proof: Products claiming to be “certified organic,”
but with no verifiable certification.
3. Sin of Vagueness: Products claiming to be natural when many
naturally occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and
formaldehyde.
4. Sin of Irrelevance: Products claiming to be CFC-free, even
though CFCs were banned 20 years ago.
5. Sin of Fibbing: Products falsely claiming to be certified by an
internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy
Star, WaterSense or Green Seal.
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: Organic cigarettes or
“environmentally friendly” pesticides. It’s better to forego
cigarettes and the use of synthetic pesticides entirely, claims
TerraChoice.

http://www.landscapemanagement.net/landscape/Home+Page+Feature+Box+Top/The-6-sins-of-greenwashing/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/587851?contextCategoryId=2550

========================


Best Blogger Tips
  • Stumble This Post
  • Save Tis Post To Delicious
  • Share On Reddit
  • Fave On Technorati
  • Buzz This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Digg This Post
  • Share On Facebook
Blog Gadgets

St. John's Daily Spray Advisory

My Past Articles

More enforcement needed for pesticide spray regulations
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 413 words
Karen Griffin - Judie Squires says someone needs to patrol the companies that spray residential areas for pesticides because she's observed nine violations of the Environmental Protection Act in her Paradise neighborhood alone


Spray woes: Province falling down on monitoring pesticides
The Telegram (St. John's) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 253 words
Judie Squires - environment to become poisoned? A temporary ban on all residential pesticides has to be put into place, to protect us, our wildlife and our environment as a whole. Judie Squires Paradise


Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (St. John's) - 08-28-2004 - 613 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic the province will ban cosmetic use


Woman doesn't expect cosmetic pesticide ban any time soon
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - 08-30-2004 - 712 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic that the province will ban the


Province lagging behind in pesticide control
The Telegram (St. John's) - 09-04-2005 - 496 words
Squires, Judie - it to do is to prohibit the cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides altogether in order to protect our citizens and the environment. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's


The two sides to pesticide use
The Telegram (St. John's) - 07-16-2006 - 781 words
Judie Squires - health of your families. When Canada's most respected health authorities tell us pesticides threaten our health, we should all be listening. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's


Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 353 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - of trees. The live spores can be inhaled by humans and animals exposed to BT. Judie Squires, secretary of the Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, says despite claims that


Delayed pesticide laws 'disappointing'
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 833 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - at the end of this year. These products will only be sold to certified dealers. Judie Squires, secretary of the newly formed Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, isn't


Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet

Time for provincial lawn pesticide regulation
The Telegram (St. John's) - 03-14-2009 - 419 words
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...

Online Marketing - OnToplist.com