 |
Ontario Vegetation Management Association (OVMA) Comments
submitted on EBR Registry Number: 010-5080 entitled “New General
Regulation under the Pesticides Act, 1990 to implement the Cosmetic
Pesticides Ban Act, 2008” (draft legislation)
OVMA understands that industrial use of pesticides on public works is
exempted from the proposed ban, when this use is limited to ‘public works’
as defined in the Public Works Protection Act and such use complies with the
requirements stipulated under Section 21, Subsection 5, of the proposed
regulation. However, our members find that the reference to the definition
of ‘public works’ as defined in the Public Works Protection Act is not
clear, nor easily understood. For example, there was some confusion at one
of the stakeholder consultations over what roads were defined within the
proposed regulations. We are concerned that confusion may also exist around
other public works areas and facilities and that the term “public works”
does not convey the concept of private companies.
MOE's slide presentation at the consultation meetings did reference the
other prescribed uses and provided a definition of ‘public works’, however,
this definition is not in the proposed regulation and the
industry's exemption is based on a brief reference to the Public Works
Protection Act in Subsection 5, point 3 of Section 18, Definitions of terms
used in the Act, and one sentence in Subsection 4 of Section 21, Promotion
of Public Health or Safety. We find that reference very vague and open to
subjective interpretation and suggest that this definition be incorporated
into this regulation (see note below for Page 12 Section 18 (5)).
We also note that the exemption for golf courses, agriculture, forestry,
trees, natural resources, specified sports fields and specialty turf have
separate definitions and written detail included in the proposed regulation,
whereas there is no definition or detail for public works or infrastructure.
We have used the term “Integrated Pest Management (IPM)” throughout these
comments, but it is worth noting that in the field of industrial / non-crop
vegetation weed and brush control, the term Integrated Vegetation Management
denotes the application of IPM approaches in this field.
Comments on specific items in proposed bill:
Page 4 Sect. 1 The definition of “herbicide” should be removed since there
is no definition of other types of pesticides. If one is needed, the one in
the Act should be used:
“pesticide” means any organism, substance or thing
that is manufactured, represented, sold or used as a means of directly or
indirectly controlling, preventing, destroying, mitigating, attracting or
repelling any pest or of altering the growth, development or characteristics
of any plant life that is not a pest and includes any organism, substance or
thing registered under the Pest Control Products Act (Canada); (“pesticide”)
Page 10 Sect. 11. (4) ii. ‘‘professional researcher’‘ needs to be defined.
Proposed definition: ‘‘professional researcher’‘ means a person trained or
experienced in scientific research methods such as one with post-graduate
training in research methods or employed as a researcher.
Page 12 Sect. 18
(5) Add this point as no 4:
‘‘4 Safety for public works includes,
but is not limited to, protection of the safety and health of both the
public and workers; such as maintaining site lines and ensuring visibility
of animals including large ungulates, vehicles and trains crossing or
entering highways and access roads or trails; maintaining safe and reliable
operation of economically and socially important facilities (such as:
power lines, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, railways, roadways) and the
prevention of power outages, catastrophic failures and life-threatening
emergencies as the result of encroaching vegetation onto the
infrastructure.’‘
Page 12 Sect. 18 (5) Due to it not being clear
in these regulations what “public works” means, we suggest one of two
options following:
Insert the definition directly as follows, at end of this
sub-section:
“For the purposes of subsection 7.1 (2) of the Act, “public
work” includes:
(a) any railway, canal, highway, bridge, power works
including all property used for the generation, transformation,
transmission, distribution or supply of hydraulic or electrical power, gas
works, water works, public utility or other work, owned, operated or carried
on by the Government of Ontario or by any board or commission thereof, or by
any municipal corporation, public utility commission or by private
enterprises,
(b) any provincial and any municipal public building, and
(c)
any other building, place or work designated a public work by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council.
(d) "highway" means a common or public highway or a
part thereof, and includes any street, bridge and any other structure
incidental thereto and any part thereof.’‘
Or paraphrase parts of this
definition as follows:
“For the purposes of subsection 7.1 (2) of the Act,
“public works”, includes:
any railway, canal, highway, roadway, bridge,
power works including all property, structures and infrastructure used for
the generation or supply of power, gas works, water works, public utility or
other work, owned, operated or carried on by the Government of Ontario or by
any board or commission thereof, or by any municipal corporation, public
utility commission or by private enterprises, as covered within the meaning
of the Public Works Protection Act”
Page 11-12 Sect. 18 and Page 15-16
Sect. 21 – What roads have been excluded? – needs clarification.
– excluded
roads and highways need to be clearly defined and spelled out (just as other
areas are such as golf courses, sports fields, etc.)
Page 15 Sect. 21.
Remove the word ‘‘significant’‘ where used throughout this section.
-
These are necessary works done for maintenance, for reliability, and for
safety of the public and personnel; not just about preventing significant
damage to structures. We have maintenance programs to ensure continual
access to infrastructure; to maintain vegetation clearance requirements; and
to maintain system reliability requirements. These operations are done with
Integrated Pest Management principles and the goal to reduce pesticide use.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (3) (a) This section states that:
‘‘If a licensed
exterminator uses the pesticide in a land extermination to control or
destroy plants that are poisonous by touch or ingestion, he or she shall
only use,
a Class 2, 3 or 4 pesticide if the pesticide contains a Class 10
pesticide;’‘
If a licensed exterminator is controlling Giant Hogweed for
example, glyphosate and triclopyr are recommended active ingredients due to
effectiveness on the weed. A Class 2, 3 or 4 pesticide containing glyphosate
could be used; however, no product containing triclopyr could be used
according to the proposed regulation. This eliminates the possibility of
resistance management and it may be argued in some situations that triclopyr
containing pesticides would be preferred for public health and the
environment. There are other examples, but the policy of limiting tools
available to trained professionals for non-cosmetic situations may not be
advisable in the long run and does not fit with Integrated Pest Management
principles of rotating pesticide products.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (4): Add one
more bullet (d) to read: ‘‘
d) the pesticide may be used for the purposes
of ensuring access to allow for routine maintenance of operations and
emergency response to public works infrastructure, such as buildings, other
structures or public works.’‘
Please note that keeping emergency access open
is as important as keeping emergency exits in buildings clear. In an
emergency situation there is no time to clear vegetation for access since
this would be a multi-week job in most cases.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (4) and
Sect. 21 (5). Remove reference to "Public Works Protection Act". In place
of this, add definition of "public works" in the definitions section of the
act (see note above for Page 12 Section 18 (5)).
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5) (a)
– needs clarification – certification [accreditation] should be acceptable
for organizations, not just individual. There needs to be a program in
place for Integrated Pest Management certification [accreditation]
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5) (a) should be split into two points:
‘‘(a) the
individual responsible for the design and planning of pesticide operations
shall be a licensed exterminator who is certified in accordance with the
integrated pest management certification requirements of an approved
accreditation body.
(b) the pesticide shall only be used by a licensed
exterminator or by a technician or trainee who is supervised by such a
person in accordance with Integrated Pest Management principles.’‘
Page 15
Sect. 21 (5) (b) - change February 1 to April 1.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5) (b)
(i)
We understand that location will be left to interpretation of each
company reporting whether location is on a macro-scale (zone or territory)
or whether total area be used in a summary format.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5)
(b) (ii) - suggest that ‘‘the quantity of each pesticide ingredient’‘ be
replaced by ‘‘the total quantity of each pesticide ingredient’‘
Page 15
Sect. 21 (5) (b) (iii) replace with: ‘‘the essential reason for using each
pesticide ingredient and the method of use within Integrated Pest Management
principles.’‘
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5) (b) (iv) – suggest removing this
section since this is part of the overall goal of Integrated Pest Management
approach.
Page 15 Sect. 21 (5) (c) (iii) – request that “(iii) on request,
given to any person without charge within seven days after the request."
be
changed to “(iii) on request, given to any person without charge within
seven days after the request or made available by means such as internet
site, publication, or personal contact.”
Page 16 Sect. 22 - All
pesticide products registered for use as a tree injection should be exempt
(not just ones in Class 5, 6 or 7). These products are completely contained
within a tree and therefore there is no public exposure. These would
include products for killing trees as well as products for controlling pests
of trees (such as insects, mites and diseases).
Page 16 Sect. 23
- There
is a need to control invasive species in all public and private works
areas. This is important for invasive weeds that do not pose a safety or
health hazard (therefore are not covered in Section 21) but that present an
environmental or ecological threat.
- It would be a huge undertaking to
get approval from MNR for each use related to invasive species or protection
of habitat and for MNR to oversee each of these types of applications.
-
Guidelines for control and management published regularly by MNR would be
suitable to lay out best management practices and when pesticides should be
used. - There is a need for a list of invasive species that can be easily
updated as information becomes available.
Page 39 Sect. 72 (4) There
needs to clarification on what is expected. Will application area need to
be indicated on Integrated Pest Management posting signs? Currently, this
is effectively done by placement of signs.
General comments and questions
on specific items in proposed bill:
1. Some products listed in the Class 9
category are not used domestically and have no application for cosmetic use
on their label, therefore should be removed from this list. These include triclopyr, imazypyr and hexazinone. Having these herbicides included when
they should not be there in the first place only creates confusion and
results in more work for Ministry staff, Integrated Vegetation Management
companies and jurisdictions to respond to mis-guided inquiries and
complaints about their legitimate use.
2. As stated above, all pesticide
products registered for use as a tree injection should be exempt (not just
ones in Class 5, 6 or 7). These products are completely contained within a
tree and therefore there is no public exposure. These would include
products for killing trees as well as products for controlling pests of
trees (such as insects, mites and diseases).
3. Question with respect
to Green Posting Signs for Class 11:
- This does not seem to recognize green
application methods.
- We would like to see greener application technologies
be included.
- How would one go about getting these technologies that
minimize exposure and risk put on the list?
- How would one go about getting
new products added to the list?
4. To be consistent, all current and
future municipal by-laws on cosmetic pesticide use should be rescinded and
replaced with this legislation.
|
|
