Coquitlam Pesticide Ban – Ban Cost Of 1,000,000 Dollars – Investigate Selina Robinson – 2012 04 25

 

 

 

 

Who Can Afford

#@!!% Pesticide Bans

in Coquitlam ?!?!

 

 

 

 

ONE MILLION DOLLARS !

 

 

In the City of Coquitlam, British Columbia, this is the ESTIMATED COST of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION.

 

 

 

ONE MILLION DOLLARS !

 

 

This is the COST of PROHIBITING products that are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.

 

 

 

ONE MILLION DOLLARS !

 

 

This is the COST of PROHIBITING products already ASSESSED FOR SAFETY and brought to market for 250 MILLION DOLLARS  …  for each product.

 

 

 

ONE MILLION DOLLARS !

 

 

This is cost of PROHIBITING products to satisfy the LUNATIC-CRAVINGS of Anti-Pesticide Councillor and Therapist Selina Robinson  …  is this woman’s COERCION, INTIMIDATION, SCREECHING, and TERRORIZING WORTH that much money ?

 

 

 

Pesticide Ban

 

 

On April 23rd, 2012, Coquitlam City Council voted 7-2 in passing the newest  ―  and final version  ―  of the city’s Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION, with Councillors Terry O’Neill and Lou Sekora VOTING AGAINST the move.

 

According to Councillor Lou Sekora  ―

 

There are pros and cons from both sides in terms of what is hazardous and what is not.

 

But we have these bleeding hearts that seem to think  ―  that EVERYTHING SHOULD BE BANNED.

 

Pretty soon people won’t even be able to live in their homes unless they have an inspector in their front yard.

 

It’s getting to a point where this is a joke.

 

The Fraser Pacific Rose Society HAS BEEN GIVEN A REPRIEVE, allowing a grace period for the Dogwood Pavilion to transition to disease-resistant roses.

 

 

 

PROHIBITION Is NOT Necessary

 

 

ANY PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT supported by health and policy experts, and is NOT supported by local residents.

 

Coquitlam’s Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION has been legislated in DEFIANCE of Health Canada’s ASSESSMENTS proving that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE  …  a process that can take up to TEN YEARS and COST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

 

City of Coquitlam DID NOT SPEND ANY MONEY on its ASSESSMENT of pest control products, and instead, relied upon Anti-Pesticide Councillor and Therapist Selina Robinson, and her buddies, who have been PERPETUATING NOTHING BUT MYTHS regarding the need for PROHIBITION.

 

Health Canada, and NOT Coquitlam, and NOT Anti-Pesticide Activists like Selina Robinson, and NOT Canadian Cancer Society, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.

 

Scientific research shows, as reported through Health Canada’s vast toxicology database, that NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.

 

Moreover, a recent poll conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association showed that THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS ARE OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION, and they actually favour the continued use of these products around their homes and in public green spaces.

 

 

 

Colleagues « Engaged » by Robinson

 

 

According to Anti-Pesticide Councillor and Therapist Selina Robinson, her TENACITY on the issue of PROHIBITION was achieved by « engaging my colleagues in discussion ».

 

AUDIO RECORDINGS of presentations made by Robinson, and her buddies, paint a picture of SCREECHING MONKEYS WHO SAID ANYTHING TO GET THEIR WAY.

 

Robinson’s strategy of « engaging » her colleagues on City Council basically amounted to COERCION, INTIMIDATION, SCREECHING, and TERRORIZING.

 

Selina Robinson, and her buddies Mae Burrows and Ashley Duyker, are Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists who are SUPPORTED, FINANCIALLY OR OTHERWISE, by Canadian Cancer Society and Toxic Free Canada.

 

These organizations are FUND-RAISING, LOBBYING, and PROFIT ACCUMULATING organizations that have NO expertise in science or research.

 

Robinson and her buddies could DO NOTHING ELSE BUT MIS-INFORM Coquitlam City Council since they were NOT COMPETENT to talk about pest control products.

 

 

 

Robinson’s Tenacity for Profit

 

 

On the issue of PROHIBITION, the TENACITY of Anti-Pesticide Councillor and Therapist Selina Robinson was most likely achieved through PERSONAL PROFIT.

 

The ultimate winners of this debacle in Coquitlam are the Anti-Pesticide Activists themselves, who BENEFIT from PAY-OFF PROGRAMS provided by Canadian Cancer Society.

 

Activists operating on behalf Canadian Cancer Society receive PAY-OFFS in the form of an INCENTIVE OF 2,000 DOLLARS by for the ORGANIZATION of EVERY Anti-Pesticide Forum.

 

Anti-Pesticide Activists also receive PAY-OFFS in the form of BONUS OF 1,000 DOLLARS by Canadian Cancer Society FOR EVERY PRESENTATION MADE TO EACH MUNICIPAL TOWN COUNCIL.

 

And now, they will be given a BOUNTY OF 5,000 DOLLARS by Canadian Cancer Society upon SUCCESSFUL PROHIBITION LEGISLATION by City of Coquitlam.

 

By early 2012, Canadian Cancer Society SQUANDERED up to 5,000,000 DOLLARS on SUBVERSIVE ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACIES.

 

If Canadian Cancer Society were to devote the same level of energy to the primary causes of cancer, that being life-style, rather than SUBVERSION AND FUND-RAISING, LESS PEOPLE WOULD DIE.

 

 

 

It Is Time To Investigate Robinson

 

 

Perhaps it is time for Coquitlam City Council to DEMAND copies of Selina Robinson’s TAX-RECORDS for the last three years, which covers the period of time that she was operating as a LOBBYIST for Canadian Cancer Society.

 

Moreover, taxation agencies should be contacted to VERIFY whether Robinson is declaring her income as a LOBBYIST for Canadian Cancer Society.

 

Besides, Robinson should have been RECUSED from anything to do about pest control products, and all of her PREJUDICIAL INPUTS in council meetings should have been INVALIDATED.

 

 

 

Warning To ALL Activists

 

 

Anti-Pesticide Activists and Government Officials are advised that all names, statements, activities, and affiliations have been ARCHIVED for eventual CRIMINAL CHARGES. 

 

When criminal charges for FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY are laid, legal experts say that there is sufficient information to lead to a SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION !

 

 

 

According to Coquitlam Councillor Terry O’Neill  ―  2012 04 23

 

 

Pesticide ban is law, but not without a fight

 

After three years of study and discussion, City Council finally passed a bylaw BANNING THE USE OF COSMETIC PESTICIDES in Coquitlam.

 

I knew passage was inevitable, but it didn’t stop me from making ONE LAST ATTEMPT to dissuade my colleagues from taking the action.

 

Here is the text of that speech.

 

In my earlier dissertation against this bylaw, I essentially spoke about how it represented the « precautionary principle run amok ».

 

Tonight, I want to focus on other aspects of its shortcomings.

 

Specifically, let’s look at Page 2 in the report to council :  the boilerplate about how the initiatives described in this bylaw are said to reflect the corporate strategic goals of :

 

1.   Achieving excellence in City governance;

 

2.   Strengthening Neighbourhoods, and

 

3.   Enhancing Sustainability of City Services and Infrastructure.

 

Let’s go through these one by one.

 

 

1.   Achieving « Excellence in City Governance ».

 

Is this what you call it when a city council COMMISSIONS A COSTLY EXPERT STUDY, then IGNORES ITS PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATION, to establish a permitting process ?

 

And then attempts to implement a near-complete ban ?

 

Excellence ?

 

And exactly how is « Excellence Achieved » by implementing a bylaw of such magnitude without coming to grips with the massive financial implications it carries :

 

According to page seven of the report, it could cost the city up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS over 10 years in extra labour costs to manually tend to « weed-impacted planting beds ».

 

One million dollars ?

 

That’s not « Excellence » in city governance.

 

That’s « Extravagance », pure and simple.

 

 

2.   Strengthening Neighbourhoods.

 

If one believes the conjecture, that the ban will make our residents healthier, then you might be able to say that this is the case.

 

But, of course, when viewing the hard evidence from Health Canada, which suggests that properly used pesticides AREN’T DANGEROUS in the first place, it’s hard to see how banning them can improve residents’ health.

 

On the other hand, as I previously noted, neighbourhoods might actually be weakened, because  ―  insofar as a ban would lead to MORE WEEDS growing in the city, ADVERSE HEALTH RISKS associated with respiratory afflictions will increase, as per evidence I provided previously, associated with the City of Toronto.

 

Moreover, as I also noted previously, FEELINGS OF GENERAL WELL-BEING MAY DECREASE, as per Dr. James Lu, Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health Unit, who wrote in a February 19, 2009, letter to Richmond council  …

 

The aesthetics of urban landscapes has public health value.

 

Flowers, not weeds, make people happy, and this has a beneficial health effect.

 

Because of this, Dr. James Lu said  …

 

A comprehensive integrated pest management approach offers a better alternative to cosmetic pesticide ban bylaws.

 

An I.P.M. strikes a balance between prudence, public policy and private choice.

 

And, then, there’s the POSSIBLE $1 MILLION PRICE TAG.

 

What services will be lost, or how much will taxes be raised, to pay for this ?

 

Either way, it’s hard to see how neighbourhoods will be strengthened by over-taxing property owners or slashing services to cover the costs.

 

 

3.   Enhancing Sustainability of City Services and Infrastructure.

 

Well, insofar as the bylaw essentially exempts the city from having to stop using weed killers on the city’s playing fields and medians  ―  and now includes an EXEMPTION on the Pacific Rose Garden, too  ―  one wonders how this is to be interpreted.

 

Let’s take a closer look.

 

Taken at face value, we are led to believe that a bylaw that allows the use of cosmetic pesticides on city property somehow enhances the sustainability of city services and infrastructure.

 

Logically, though, if this is so, it must also be true that the bylaw  ―  which has an opposite effect on private property  ―  must also have an opposite outcome on private property when measuring sustainability.

 

Bizarrely, this would lead us to conclude that the ban would have an UNSUSTAINABLE impact on that private property.

 

You can’t have it both ways !

 

ALLOWING usage on city property and DISALLOWING use on private property can’t both be sustainable at the same time.

 

Oh the irony !

 

Reviewing the impact of the bylaw on the corporate strategic goals, then, it’s HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE whether « excellence in city governance » has been achieved, it’s DOUBTFUL that « neighbourhoods have been strengthened », and it’s IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether city services and infrastructure will enjoy « enhanced sustainability ».

 

In conclusion, and sticking with the subject of irony, I mentioned a moment ago, I must also draw attention to a letter dated February 24, 2012, and signed by Verne Kucy, Acting Manager of Environmental Services, in which he responds to questions from the BC Cancer Society about the aforementioned city-fields exemption.

 

In defense of the exemption, Mr. Kucy declared, and I quote  …

 

You should be aware that our Parks Department only uses products [ that ] have been authorized by the relevant Federal health agencies responsible for researching and approving their use and only as permitted under Provincial regulations.

 

Ironic ?

 

Of course it is, because, absent any city-bylaw banning the use of cosmetic pesticides on private lawns, every citizen of Coquitlam could make exactly the same statement  ―  that they use only « products [ that ] have been authorized by the relevant Federal health agencies responsible for researching and approving their use and only as permitted under Provincial regulations ».

 

So it seems that the city deems itself responsible enough to make this argument, but has concluded that average citizens and property owners are, as a whole, completely IR-responsible.

 

Actually, this is BEYOND IRONIC.

 

It’s INSULTING.

 

And it’s DISCRIMINATORY too, because it prejudges citizens, and finds them all guilty of reckless and unhealthy pesticide use.

 

It should come as NO SURPRISE, then, that I will VOTE AGAINST this bylaw on the grounds that it is EXPENSIVE, ILLOGICAL, UNSCIENTIFIC, and UNFAIR.

 

 

 

For the original copy of this Force Of Nature Report, go to the following link  …

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-CARNAGE-2012-04-25-Coquitlam-BC-1000000-Who-Can-Afford-@-Pesticide-Bans-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

 

 

NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

 

COMPLAINT CHANNELS  –  BUSINESS, FUND-RAISING, GOVERNMENT, & TAXATION AGENCIES

COMPLAIN About Selina Robinson & Canadian Cancer Society

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1PE

 

 

 

ORGANIZATION  –  CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY  –  SUBVERSIVE, CONTEMPTIBLE, AND RADICAL

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1OW

 

 

 

ORGANIZATION  –  CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY  –  REFERENCES FOR LITIGATION

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2I8

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  –  CONSPIRACY TO PROHIBIT PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1O6

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  –  COQUITLAM, CITY OF  –  AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS UNHAPPY, UGLY, UNEMPLOYED, UNENLIGHTENED, AND UNHEALTHY

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-3vl

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  –  COQUITLAM, CITY OF  –  REFERENCES FOR LITIGATION

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-3Qv

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  –  KELOWNA, CITY OF  –  ANTI-PESTICIDE WOMEN COUNCILLORS

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-3mr

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  –  SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2c2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized
https://wp.me/p1jq40-49o