Political Science trumps science in toxics bill

As the McGuinty government proudly implemented its half-baked pesticide ban on earth day last week, I found myself preparing for the latest piece of environmental legislation out of Queens Park - Bill 167- the Toxics Reduction Act.

While pointing out the lack of science and risk-based approach, the lack of incentives, and the plethora of red-tape, I could only think to myself “Here we go again!”

My main concern with Bill 167 is the fact that Mr. McGuinty’s regulation and legislation seems to be based on emotion as opposed to fact and science.
The concept of politics trumping science becomes patently clear when we look at the lynchpin of Bill 167 – that being the definition of what is toxic, and how the list of toxic substances will be developed.

The legislation and related backgrounders make it clear that the government’s definition of toxic will be left up to a politically appointed “expert” panel.

There is an easier, less costly, less duplicative, more effective, science and risk-based way.

As advocated by the Opposition in April 2007, a goals-oriented and non-emotion based approach would make use of the Federal Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) and its stringent assessment for toxics.

The CMP falls under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), and its related risk assessment process is well-respected, well-resourced, costly (costs Ontario should not try to duplicate), and a world-class leader.
A release from the Canadian Manufacuturers and Exporters – signed by industry groups representing close to 80 per cent of our industrial economy – puts the legislation in perspective:“The proposed toxics reduction act places a high emphasis on process rather than achieving results. Moreover, the Ontario government through this bill is moving in the opposite direction of federal-provincial harmonization. The federal chemicals management plan is one of the most stringent processes in the world. Duplicating this process at the provincial level is not necessary and we believe that Ontario must leverage and stay aligned with the federal government both in respect to the reporting of substances, as well as the assessment and science behind the list of substances deemed toxic.”

The comment on report writing reminds me of the time I spent in South-East Asia in 1969, at the time of Vietnam. One U.S. soldier, when he was on R&R in Bangkok explained to me in great detail, how every night his platoon conducted their obligatory patrol in a flood-lit urban park in Saigon with the perimeter secured by razor-wire. And every day the obligatory report would be sent to Macnamara in the Pentagon.

As this relates to the reporting of toxic substance use, it makes little sense to devote resources and dollars to go through a bureaucratic process if that process isn’t providing the toxic reduction goals we are seeking.

You can’t fight the fight by focussing on process and ignoring results.

On another front, given the dire economic conditions and hurdles that our business and industrial sector are having to bear, it leaves us to question the timing of this legislation – legislation that will create even further costly regulatory challenges to daily operations.

Again, I agree with the concept of toxic reduction, I just fail to agree with the approach we see here before us today.

I will continue to encourage government to further consult and develop a responsible piece of legislation to achieve our reduction goals. This legislation must acknowledge economic realities and make the best use of taxpayer and business dollars.