Although the industry mounted an aggressive campaign against an unnecessary, confusing, convoluted, conflict producing, polarizing and unenforceable bylaw, the City of Toronto decided to introduce a bylaw that would restrict the use of pesticides, to be used only in the case of infestation. (As if there is any other reason to use pesticides). In effect, they passed an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) bylaw. The main problem with the bylaw was that no one could define “infestation.” The Board of Health view was that weeds do not constitute an infestation unless there is substantial property damage. The industry view is different.
Councillor Duguid brokered a reluctant agreement between the Toronto Environmental Coalition (TEC) (made up of seven Toronto-based lawn care firms) and the activist group Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA). A committee made up of two TEC members, two TEA members, two staff, one parks staff, one doctor, one scientist/toxicologist and two Landscape Ontario members will be challenged to define “infestation” and set up treatment thresholds. After the agreement was reached one of the councillors introduced a motion to add another activist member to the committee. This caused industry to vehemently protest, which culminated in three members being ejected from the gallery. The outburst shamed council into retracting the motion in favour of the original agreement.
I am convinced that the aggressive campaign and emotionally draining negotiations saved the commercial lawn care sector. The campaign consisted of radio and newspaper ads, thousands of phone calls, petitions, door-to-door communications and many other lobbying and public relations activities culminating in a rally of over 400 industry members and staff wearing t-shirts with the message “Gardening should not be a crime.” One of the councillors commented to Roger Mongeon from Weed Man that it was the greatest municipal government relations campaign ever mounted in Toronto. The industry has learned from environmental activists. The lesson is that a small group of dedicated and passionate people working together can achieve a great deal.
In the confusion generated by 24 hours of debate and many motions and amendments, two other important and related motions were accepted. One motion clearly stated that weeds are to be considered an infestation within the bylaw. Another reinforced the idea that City-owned property will fall under the new bylaw. This opens the way for the city to control weeds on their own property (Something they were not permitted to do previously because of past council motions).
In the end, both parties came out with wins. The industry and public will still be allowed the responsible use of pesticides within the framework of IPM and Plant Health Care. (This was our only message). The activists got their bylaw and all of the false “ban” optics that come with it.
For more coverage, look to the July issue of Horticulture Review.
- Sample letter explains new Toronto bylaw
Dispel myths and confusion among lawn care customers about the new Toronto IPM bylaw and what it means to them. Click here for a copy of this sample letter prepared by Landscape Ontario.
