Hearings reveal cracks in toxic reduction bill

Emotion and media soundbites should never trump science in the crafting of public policy.

This week, committee hearings continued on the Ontario government’s Toxics Reduction Act. As I listened to deputants, the messages were reminiscent of hearings on McGuinty’s Cosmetic Pesticide Ban.

There are scientists and professionals who know a lot more about pesticides and toxics than elected representatives. As legislators, it is our job to take scientific and other evidence and turn it into fair, reasonable and effective legislation. At times, the Ontario government takes a different path.
During hearings, we received input to alter the proposed toxics legislation from its current state.

The Canadian Cancer Society, Registered Nurses and Environmental Defence brought forward recommendations to toughen the bill; including amendments to make the voluntary sections of the bill, pertaining to implementation of toxic reduction, mandatory.

This government talks about voluntary implementation. I find that suspect, given the police powers contained in this legislation – powers giving government agents the right to enter property without consent and without a warrant.

Many other presenters reiterated the points I made both in the Legislature and in my weekly column with regard to the need for science and risk-based decision-making when it comes to regulating toxics.

The Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute (CPPI) addressed the committee hearings on the lack of a, “risk-based” approach in Bill 167. They asked the legislation be amended to indicate that toxic substance reduction plans underline the business owners intention to reduce the use of toxic substance, “on a risk prioritized basis”, and further that the same plans aim to, “reduce the level of emissions of toxic substances….on a risk prioritized basis.” This contrasts with the advocacy of others for the, “precautionary” approach.

CPPI also addressed the possible creation of an unlevel playing field for those companies who sell product not manufactured in Ontario. One such proposal requested the addition of the following, “A facility is not required to report the level of toxic substances in products manufactured in Ontario, where that requirement is not applied to products manufactured outside of Ontario and imported for resale…”

The increased costs of doing business that this legislation will engender create even further burdens on industry already being forced to cut their work force or pull up stakes for more business-friendly environments. This should not be about growing the bureaucracy or creating additional unnecessary burden on business just to fill out government forms and follow process.
Further, while we may agree with some of the goals of the proposed legislation, the timing of its introduction is questionable given the current economic conditions in which business and industry find themselves. What we proposed two years ago, and what government has failed to achieve, is the creation of a ‘made-in-Ontario’ approach taking into consideration how we do business within the realities of our provincial economy.

The pesticides experience saw most stakeholders remain mute, while we – as Opposition -- tried to make changes to the act. After the bill was passed, the calls started coming in from those impacted asking us to stop the madness. At that point it was quite simply too late.

The hearings brought forward many sides. It’s clear there is much more work to do before government’s toxic reduction act lives up to its title.