MINUTES - PUBLIC - ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE (CELCC)

Public question period

A question from the public is addressed by Monique Bisson, a citizen and member of the group Gatineau sans pesticides. The intervention concerns communication and awareness campaigns related to the Règlement sur les pesticides (Pesticide Bylaw). From the outset, Ms. Bisson explains that Gatineau sans pesticides will continue its proposals and demands to the Municipal Council and the Commission. These will focus on the spraying of pesticides on golf courses, the use of dicamba on lawns, and the need to use a list of authorized pesticides, all while maintaining a critical eye on pesticides in Gatineau's drinking water.

This intervention concerns the progress of actions related to the adoption of the Règlement sur les pesticides 2024 (2024 Pesticide Bylaw) resulting from the biodiversity action plan. During the June 2025 meeting, Gatineau sans pesticides noted two actions concerning the pesticide file that took place in 2024-2025, namely:

• The deployment of a communication and awareness campaign (2024-2025);
• The creation of alternative lawn showcases (2024-2025: 10 showcases set up).

Ms. Bisson explains that, according to research undertaken by members of Gatineau sans pesticides, apart from in the Buckingham sector, no other person from the GSP group was aware of the door-hanger initiative nor seems to have had the opportunity to hear or see the awareness campaigns related to pesticides. Also, GSP wonders where the alternative lawn showcases are located.

Ms. Bisson is thanked for the questions asked. In response, the Department explains that nearly 8,200 door hangers were distributed in partnership with Enviro Éduc-Action in targeted neighborhoods this summer. It should be noted that particular attention was paid to prioritizing distribution in neighborhoods with more issues. Furthermore, a communication campaign also took place this summer: awareness messages broadcast on the radio as well as via various platforms, including social media. In collaboration with the Water and Residual Materials Department, regulatory enforcement has begun. Information letters were, among other things, sent to various contractors. The details of this deployment will be presented during the information item scheduled for this meeting, item 8. Efforts were also made with certain contractors and citizens who were not complying with the bylaw.

Regarding the alternative lawn showcases, the Department indicates that there were indeed 10 in 2025 (two more than in 2024); these were deployed with appropriate signage. A follow-up will be done with Ms. Bisson to provide her with the location of these alternative lawn showcases (Buckingham Service Centre, 144, boul. de l'Hôpital, Maison du Citoyen, Masson-Angers Service Centre, Parc des Cèdres (2), Docteur-Jean-Lorrain Library, Guy-Sanche Library, Parc Moussette). Two alternative ground cover projects also took place. In "Pointe-Gatineau," a pre-flowering test was done in a vacant lot to align with the Bee City, Bird Friendly City certification. An awareness process took place and will continue in the coming years.

Ms. Bisson thanks the Department. The additional information will serve to better understand and explain the progress of the implementation of the Bylaw to members of the GSP group and members of the public. The Department reiterates the importance of registering a request at 311 when a situation contrary to certain regulatory provisions is noticed in order to be notified and to intervene appropriately, when possible. The Chair wishes to thank Gatineau sans pesticides for their contribution to improving sustainable development in Gatineau. The importance of the organization is highlighted, and Ms. Bisson is invited to stay online to hear the information item that will be provided on this subject by Ms. Marcotte at the end of the meeting. It is hoped that GSP will always remain present in the community. GSP will continue this collaboration for an ever-healthier city without pesticides.

Ecological Transition Department Grant Program – Presentation – Recommendation

Jacinthe Grégoire, Environmental Project Coordinator at the Ecological Transition Department, presents the proposed new grant program, accompanied by Frédéric Vandal, Director, and Louise Tremblay, Department Head. The objective of the presentation is to obtain a recommendation from the Commission on the structure of the new program and its deployment. The new structure of the proposed program, divided into 4 components, is presented: component 1 – Impulsion; component 2 – ÉcoDéclic; component 3 – ÉcoPlus; and component 4 – Écogestes.

It is indicated that 18 organizations and partners were consulted (winter 2025) and that a citizen consultation was held from February to March 2025, where 509 citizens gave their opinions regarding eco-actions. The results of the consultations having been presented to the CELCC last May, the new structure proposes 4 components to better meet the needs, expectations, and realities of the community, in coherence with the results. The following novelties are included: the accounting of results by component via a dashboard, the dissemination of impacts, the knowledge of certain 'favorite' projects, and the improvement of internal administrative procedures. It is indicated that an evaluation committee will be mandated to evaluate the projects of components 1, 2, and 3. The Department also presents implementation scenarios while recalling that the Commission does not rule on operational components, human resources, or the budgetary question. It is simply a matter of indicating which of the scenarios seems the most optimal among the following: all-inclusive; streamlined; essential; or economic. The next steps are specified, including the phased launch of the program in 2026.

Exchange Period

General Comments Thanks are addressed to the presenter for the clarity of the presentation. The progress of the file to date is highlighted.

Program Simplification A question is asked regarding the simplification of the program (new green fund) for organizations. The Department responds that it has indeed been simplified following comments from organizations. The City has improved certain technical aspects, including reporting, payments, etc. Congratulations are addressed to the Department for the lightening of administrative procedures. It should be noted that the cost-sharing formulas were complex in the old green fund. Previously, the City requested many reports, and local actors wondered if they were all necessary. The City is encouraged to continue these efforts to target only what is useful for project evaluation purposes.

Impact Measurement The importance of identifying the actions or grants that will have the greatest effect and impact is noted. Carrying out a planned analysis that provides an overview of the impact of measures and their cost would allow for informed choices. The importance of clearly defining the objectives to be achieved is mentioned. As an example, support for the Department's action plans is mentioned.

Component 2 – ÉcoDéclic and Component 3 – ÉcoPlus The difference and relevance of components 2 and 3 are discussed. It is clarified that component 3 allows the Department to better target the type of project sought by identifying the objectives to be achieved while communicating them to those who will submit projects.

Schools and Component 3 – ÉcoDéclic A member wonders what types of projects can be submitted by the school community (school) within the framework of the ÉcoDéclic program? Some are surprised that schools can have access to municipal funds. The Department explains that schools are public and that the City of Gatineau's Legal Affairs Department has confirmed that grants can be offered to them. Support for schoolyard greening, pollinator projects, and nature awareness are examples.

Component 4 – Écogestes, management and relevance Questions are raised in connection with component 4. There is questioning about the type of request and need met by this component and the operating mode that will be put in place to administer this fund. Members indicate that the eco-actions component will require enormous resources and efforts (administrative burden). One wonders if the results sought by these eco-actions would have been achieved if they were not subsidized? It is mentioned that it is likely that the applicants are already convinced people adopting similar behaviors. A member points out that this scenario requires a lot of money and time and that, however, it is the least structuring activity, with the exception of the 'businesses' category. There is concern, among other things, about the dispersion of actions. According to the point of view of some members, these initiatives may not bring about a significant change. The low impact that the old cloth diaper grant had is recalled. Unless another objective is targeted, such as citizen awareness, in a context where resources are limited, it would be interesting to review its relevance and/or better target eco-actions to achieve clear objectives while evaluating their cost-effectiveness.

The Department explains that the advantage of subsidizing eco-actions is to allow the City to quantify the impacts and measure behavioral changes while encouraging them. It is indicated that it would be interesting to ask applicants if they have changed their habits. The Department specifies that specific criteria will be put in place to evaluate who will have priority for the grant, depending on the case. For example, some eco-actions will prioritize low-income individuals (e.g., cloth diapers, hygiene products, etc.). If demand is low, support will be opened to other members of the public. Members are of the opinion that the burden of administrative management of such a program (eco-actions) could be an issue. In the current context and given internal resources, a member questions the feasibility for the City to deploy such a program. The idea of evaluating other options such as delegation to a third-party local organization for its administration is proposed. The point is enhanced by adding that some local organizations are closest to socio-vulnerable communities (e.g., Maison de la famille). This approach would possibly make it possible to ensure that it is the communities that need it most that will benefit from it as a priority.

Discussions follow regarding the relevance of eco-actions and their utility (e.g., electric lawnmowers, backwater valves, etc.). A member wishes to clarify if, in this type of example, the targeted objective is to help certain citizens comply with municipal bylaws and if it is the role of a municipality to see to it? It is indicated, however, that eco-actions related to water saving are important and should be maintained. The Department mentions that the objective of presenting the issue of eco-actions to the Commission is precisely to discuss it and understand the different perspectives. This component is oriented towards a desired behavioral change, rather than towards structuring actions. The amounts granted are more significant since they concern the entire territory. The question of the relevance of supporting these eco-actions arises all the same, and changes in the approach and orientation of the program will be studied following the meeting. The identified eco-actions are nevertheless consistent with the results of public consultations and target various objectives of the Department's action plans.

Component 4 – Écogestes and economy-efficiency impact / citizen dollar The effectiveness of our investments in terms of environmental gains is discussed. The Department chose, in the first place, not to target 'buildings' due to its operational capacities. The impact of eco-actions on the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) is not a notable gain. However, the impact sought by this component is at the level of public awareness. Some cities even grant a much larger budget to eco-actions to raise public awareness. A member is of the opinion that out of the 1.7 million [tons] of greenhouse gases produced in Gatineau, it would be necessary to know where the greatest challenge lies in order to act on it, as a priority. For the sake of efficiency and to optimize the use of the 'citizen dollar,' it would be important to reflect on this. It is mentioned that there is a desire for people to have better social awareness, but that with few resources, an informed choice must be made in order to target where to invest public money (citizen dollar) so that it has the most impact.

The Vice-Chair indicates that initially, a process had been undertaken to identify the sectors where the City has the most effort to make for GHG reduction: transport and buildings. To this end, it is indicated that it would be preferable to reallocate the planned money (component 4) for the purpose of supporting and enhancing a structuring plan or other impact initiatives (e.g., bike plan). An analysis of eco-actions and their expected impacts is desired. The Department specifies that for each component, there is a desire to deploy awareness and communication. The Chair indicates that the eco-actions program presented is somewhat the Victoriaville model, where a series of eco-actions are subsidized. The Department indicates, moreover, that Victoriaville is reviewing this and that they have a very large component related to buildings. Their program is re-evaluated based on their organizational capacity.

Businesses One wonders if support for businesses in their sustainable development process falls under the Ecological Transition Department, or if this role would be more suitable for ID Gatineau or the Economic Development Office, given their respective mandates. Furthermore, it is highlighted that several provincial and federal programs already finance eco-actions. It is therefore essential to clearly define the role that the City must play in complementarity with these initiatives.

Sustainability of funding The sustainability of funding raises questions. Is there some flexibility to support projects that span more than one year? One wonders if a reflection has been conducted on this subject. The uncertainty surrounding funding represents a major issue for organizations, whose impacts are very real: loss of know-how, departure of staff, etc. The Department confirms that it has been more restrictive in the past, limiting support to projects lasting 1 to 2 years. However, an openness is now manifesting to allow grants over a longer period, depending on the nature of the project (3 to 5 years). This longer-term funding would be possible, with all reservations. A member highlights the advantages of such support, which allows organizations to be proactive, to seize opportunities, and to complement the City's actions, while offering them greater room for maneuver. As an example, for the CREDDO, this represents an investment of $615,000 injected into Gatineau, 13 projects carried out, 3 jobs created, etc. Financial leverage, flexibility, and listening are key elements. Thanks are addressed to the City for its openness and receptivity.

Expert Group UQO An elected member raises the question of the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in this type of analysis and evaluation. The Department deems this question relevant and indicates that it is participating in ongoing reflections on the prospects for using AI in this field.

Coherence with the Department's action plans and indicators Clarification is requested regarding the concordance of the components with the Department's action plans. One wonders if all 4 components must respond to these in order to be aligned with organizational priorities. The Department confirms that the 4 components correspond to actions in the current action plans and thus allow for better structuring of actions and better quantification of results. A clarification is provided regarding support for organizations, component 1, which is now integrated into the Green Fund. To select projects, an evaluation grid is used to measure their relevance. Each project must reach a minimum threshold of 70% to be selected.

Scenarios Following the presentation of the four scenarios, questions were raised as to the reasons and advantages of presenting several options, knowing that scenario 1 seems the most optimal. The Department specifies that these scenarios take into account several factors, including budgetary considerations. Although the Commission is not called upon to rule on financial aspects or necessary resources, the Department wished to illustrate the different possibilities, each having distinct implications in terms of deployment and implementation capacity. The objective is to recommend a scenario within the framework of the upcoming budget analysis. The Chair declares a possible conflict of interest in connection with the subject discussed.

Preliminary discussion around the proposed recommendations Exchanges take place regarding the two recommendations presented. The wording of the first recommendation seems to fit only partially. The second recommendation also fits partially with the choice of scenario 1, which would require some adjustments. The members express the wish to highlight the components having the most structuring impacts and to reflect further on the scope of eco-actions. Suggestions are formulated, such as the possibility of reducing the budgets associated with eco-actions or entrusting their management to a third-party organization. It is also proposed to target a specific sector to concentrate actions. The Department specifies that the objective of obtaining these recommendations is linked to a discussion to come on this subject possibly within the framework of the budget study. This program would not be discussed this autumn at the municipal council. Exchanges take place regarding the reformulation of the recommendations. The proposal would be to move forward with components 1, 2, and 3, while re-evaluating component 4 relating to eco-actions. Implementation scenario 1 remains the preferred choice of the members, provided that it is adapted to the new proposed formula, while maintaining the initial budget. The Chair requests a break to return with clarified wording upon the resumption of the meeting.

[Break from 4:27 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.]

Chair's thanks Before resuming discussions, the Chair wishes to thank the teams of the Ecological Transition Department, those of the Water and Residual Materials Department, and the Committees and Commissions team for their contribution. The filing of the 2024-2025 work plan report, which will be filed at the end of the meeting, is highlighted with pride. Thanks are also addressed to the members and elected officials. The involvement of the Commission members as well as the commitment of the public in the work were particularly highlighted and appreciated. Jessy Desjardins leaves the meeting at 4:27 p.m. The quorum is maintained.

Two adjusted orientations are presented during the meeting and read as follows:

Orientation 1: Adopt the new Green Fund program, the structure of which is divided into 3 distinct components. Eco-actions will be re-evaluated and integrated into the program according to an analysis of their optimal environmental impact.

Orientation 2: Adopt scenario 1, integrating the conclusions of the re-evaluation of the eco-actions component.

The recommendations initially proposed surrounding the grant program cannot be adopted due to possible conflicts of interest for which three of the members present abstain from ruling. Three other members having spoken in favor of the orientations presented.

Update: Pesticide file – Filing of a summary document – Information item

Vincent Paquette, Division Chief of Environmental Control at the Water and Residual Materials Department (SEMR), presents the summary document concerning the pesticide file, accompanied by Chantal Marcotte, Director of the SEMR. This is an information item reporting on the following elements: contractors, merchants, citizens, golf courses, patrol, human resources, training, documents and work tools created for the application of the bylaw, weather, pesticide management code, and municipal bylaw. Ariane Hamel leaves the meeting at 6:04 p.m. The quorum is maintained.

Exchange Period

General Comments Thanks are addressed to the team for the preparation of the summary document and the presentation.

Regulatory Adjustment A member wishes to better know and understand the type of regulatory adjustments that took place in the summer of 2025. The Department gives as an example the fact that the Pesticide Management Code has changed the numbers of its annexes. The Bylaw in Gatineau referring to it, an adjustment must be made in order to link the regulation to the correct annex in the new Code. For example, at the level of golf courses, shooting ranges are included, but the provincial Bylaw does not include them; this is to be clarified. At the level of definitions, clarification is necessary for certain subjects (e.g., references to fertilizers, vehicle identification, etc.).

Facilitating access to information – City website It is explained that it is difficult to find one's way properly on this subject on the City's website. Clarification is necessary for members of the public to facilitate access to information. The Department takes note of it. It confirms that the names of pesticides are very complex. It is recalled that citizens will no longer be able to obtain prohibited pesticides in Gatineau stores following the regulation. However, it is possible that prohibited products are purchased elsewhere (online or in Canada). It is specified that in Gatineau, one of the specificities of the regulation concerns glyphosate. A member highlights that new pesticides are now added to the list, such as Dicamba. The updated list of authorized pesticides would thus be necessary to properly communicate the information. The Department explains that currently, the regulation does not prohibit it. The Vice-Chair wishes to recall that in the past, the Commission recommended a white list of permitted products. The Department mentions that it will be necessary to look at this aspect with more precision, in due course, since there are impacts. Everything must be evaluated appropriately. The Department specifies that it must be done in stages. The new bylaw is applied and there will be an evaluation. The analysis that is linked to the white list is to be done. The Department must be allowed to apply the Bylaw in the first place. Lise Filiatrault leaves the meeting at 6:16 p.m. The quorum is lost.