OTTAWA — Do those plush green lawns really need to be free of dandelions?
In a case that may end up affecting the lives of more Canadians than most political and legal issues that surface in Ottawa, the Supreme Court of Canada was set to examine Thursday whether towns may ban lawn pesticides,
The case pits environmentalists, who say pesticides are too risky to be used for cosmetic purposes, against homeowners and professional landscapers, who say a judicious use of pesticides should be allowed.
The case involves the Montreal suburb of Hudson, which in 1991 became the first Canadian municipality to ban pesticides — chemicals that attack weeds or insects. Farmers were exempt.
Since then 36 other Quebec towns as well as the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, have enacted similar bans. Other towns are now looking at this court case for guidance.
"When your neighbor sprays your lawn, not all the pesticides stay on the lawn," said Janet May, representing the Toronto Environmental Alliance, one of the groups that presented written arguments to the court.
"Other people are exposed to the pesticides in the air they breathe, the food they eat and in the water that they drink."
Michael Elliott, Hudson mayor when the ban was introduced, said Wednesday he had used pesticides on lawns and in agriculture but changed his mind after hearing "enough horror stories." He pointed to the warnings on a pesticide package.
"It does have a skull and crossbones and it says on the back of the package, 'If ingested, induce vomiting.' Now to me that means it's dangerous."
Two lawn-care companies took Hudson to court in Quebec. Hudson won twice and the firms are now appealing.
Dr. Nicole Bruinsma of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said pesticides can affect brain and neuro-development of children and can block or mimic natural hormones.
Professional landscapers say they have scaled back pesticides use and have adopted a so-called Integrated Pest Management approach, which includes biological and other alternatives to pesticides.
But Jean Baillargeon of the Quebec Association of Ornamental Horticultural Services said, "There are certain cases where biological solutions just don't work."
His group is one that is intervening against Hudson, and he argues that the biggest culprits in town are private citizens who go out and buy big packages of fertilizer mixed with herbicide.
He said the professionals do not use such products, and he advocated that the federal government simply ban them.
The landscapers say the products they do use have been approved by the Canadian government and towns have no right under provincial or federal law to ban them.
On that separate point, the environmentalists are arguing that, regardless of the court case, Canada should tighten the rules under which it approves pesticides.
The House of Commons Environment Committee produced a 212-page report last May recognizing that farms will continue to use pesticides but arguing for a gradual national phase-out of cosmetic pesticides.
Ironically, snow blanketed Ottawa and much of Canada at the time of the Supreme Court case. But by the time it renders its decision, it was likely to be the height of spraying season next summer.