This comment is with respect…

This comment is with respect to Schedule 5 of the proposed Bill 66, to cancel the Toxic Reductions Act.

Introduction

I do not agree with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) that the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 (“TRA”) duplicates requirements under federal law on control of toxic substances -namely the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (“CEPA”)] - and, therefore, do not agree with the MECP argument that repealing the TRA will reduce a burden on industry from having to comply with duplicate programs.

Ontario has also previously identified many toxic substances in Ontario not covered by federal requirements that if they are still present in the province could benefit from application of the TRA.

Background

I live in Hamilton, which is a city with a heavy industrial core and an extensive base of manufacturing facilities. Members of the community have worked for many years to see these facilities make improvements to reduce their emissions to air, land and water. This has included pushing for greater openness and transparency so that Hamiltonians living in neighbourhoods near the industrial core have information about what their industrial neighbours are doing, what risks and challenges are associated with these activities and, most importantly, what efforts are underway at these facilities to minimize and ideally eliminate any environmental impacts from these operations. Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Act and associated regulations represents an important piece in the on-going effort to increase openness and transparency and realize progress in reducing and/or eliminating the use and release of harmful substances from industry wherever possible

Comment on Bill 66 Proposal

The MECP proposals are based on the assumptions that: (1) the TRA and its planning and reporting requirements are duplicative of federal requirements; and (2) eliminating the TRA and its requirements will save industry money but still result in protecting human health and the environment. The assumptions are not correct. The concept at the heart of TRA of mandatory preparation, but voluntary implementation, of toxics reduction plans has a record of demonstrated success in jurisdictions such as Massachusetts that have had such a law in place for approximately three decades. The TRA has only really been fully in effect since 2013. There is no reason, and more importantly, no evidence, to assume it cannot work in Ontario given time and dedication.

The purpose of the TRA is to prevent pollution and protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances and informing Ontarians about toxic substances. Pre-TRA legislation in Ontario (e.g. EPA, OWRA) focused on, and continues to focus on, pollution abatement, not pollution prevention. This problem explains why Ontario’s emissions of toxic substances to air, land, and water are some of the highest in North America.

There are several limitations under CEPA. The reporting requirements pursuant to notices issued under s. 46 of CEPA that result in the NPRI, address the obligation on companies to report on the release, but not the use, of toxic substances. Accordingly, a focus on the use (and creation) of toxic substances, as is the case with TRA, represents new, not duplicate, legal authority in Ontario. As the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has observed: “While the existing federal NPRI program focusses on gathering and publishing information on industrial emissions…the driving intent of the TRA is toxics reduction”.

The planning and reporting requirements of TRA are the heart of the statute and how it fills the gaps in the inadequacies of federal law (CEPA). By eliminating the TRA and its unique requirements, MECP jeopardizes both the human health and environmental protections of the statute as well as its potential economic benefits to industry in identifying where reductions in the use and creation of toxic substances may be possible

Conclusion

The TRA needs to be improved, not abandoned and the need for these improvements dwarfs any concern with alleged “red tape” under the program.