FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 2, 2019
QUEEN’S PARK – Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett called for red tape reduction and getting rid of the duplication with the Ontario Toxics Reduction Act during debate of Bill 66 at Queen’s Park yesterday.
Barrett was speaking to the Restoring Ontario’s Competiveness Act, 2019 and drew on his experience as Environment Critic when the Ontario Toxics Reduction Act was implemented 10 years ago.
“It was modelled on legislation in the state of Massachusetts,” he said. “I phoned Massachusetts. I e-mailed Massachusetts. I had conversations back and forth with the Massachusetts Chemistry and Technology Alliance.”
Barrett was told job losses resulted from the legislation in Massachusetts and there was not a significant improvement in the environment.
“You can argue that the use of toxics went down in Massachusetts,” he said. “That was because industry left. They weren’t working with these substances anymore.”
Drawing on his knowledge of the act, Barrett said the Toxics Reduction Act duplicates what is in place at the national level in Canada through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Chemicals Management Plan. This legislation made Canada a world leader in combating industrial chemical pollution. It also duplicates toxic substance reporting under the National Pollutant Release Inventory and Ontario’s own regulation 127/01, Airborne Contaminant Discharge Monitoring and Reporting.
“It’s a program; it’s an awful lot of red tape and reporting and paperwork,” Barrett said. “It suffocates business, it suffocates jobs, with very little evidence that it’s doing anything with respect to the environment.
“It does raise the question: Why should we be spending government resources and why should we be spending business resources on an inadequate, bureaucratic system that is doomed to achieve very little with respect to effective results? It really makes little sense to go through the bureaucratic process for the simple reason of just going through the process.”
Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competiveness Act, 2019, passed in the Legislature this morning and awaits Royal Assent.
-30-
For more information, contact MPP Toby Barrett at 519-428-0446 or toby.barrett@pc.ola.org
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Official Hansard
Monday, April 1, 2019
Mr. Toby Barrett: The member for Parkdale–High Park talked a great deal about issues around employment and jobs.
I do want to stress that Bill 66 will go a long way to improve our workforce situation. It cuts red tape. It eliminates that federal-provincial duplication.
For example, Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Act came in 10 years ago. I was environment critic at that time. It was modelled on legislation in the state of Massachusetts. I phoned Massachusetts. I emailed Massachusetts. I had conversations back and forth with the Massachusetts Chemistry and Technology Alliance. They outlined their 20-year experience—that would now be 30-year experience—with the particular law down there and told me that, essentially, there was no evidence that it led to anything. The way it was structured “has led to loss of jobs in Massachusetts and has done little or nothing to improve the environment down there.” You can argue that the use of toxics went down in Massachusetts. That was because industry left. They weren’t working with these substances anymore.
With respect to the duplication, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—that was in 1999—and the complementary Chemicals Management Plan—in 2006—positioned Canada as a world leader in this field. Moreover, Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Act, which we are repealing, duplicates toxic substance reporting requirements under the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory—the NPRI—and Ontario’s own regulation 127/01, “Airborne Contaminant Discharge Monitoring and Reporting.” To get rid of this kind of stuff, you’re going to see more jobs.
Mr. Toby Barrett: The member for Durham makes what I consider a compelling argument, an explanation of the duplicate regulation with respect to the Toxics Reduction Act. It’s a program; it’s an awful lot of red tape and reporting and paperwork. It suffocates business, it suffocates jobs, with very little evidence that it’s doing anything with respect to the environment.
It does raise the question: Why should we be spending government resources and why should we be spending business resources on an inadequate, bureaucratic system that is doomed to achieve very little with respect to effective results? It really makes little sense to go through the bureaucratic process for the simple reason of just going through the process.
By way of example, it brings to mind an experience I had. I had an opportunity to talk to an awful lot of US soldiers during the time of the Vietnam War, and I spent time in Southeast Asia. I was shocked at how that war was being run. There was bureaucracy that consisted of sending memos, at the time, by fax to McNamara reporting what sounded good on paper. I’ll use an example. One fellow I talked to—his platoon set up a perimeter in a park in Saigon. They secured it with razor wire, and they lit it. Every night, they would go around in circles doing a patrol—obviously, no danger in the centre of the city—and then every night, late at night, they would send in a memo: “Here’s the process. Here are the bureaucratic requirements. We completed on our patrol”—no results, no win, and, as we all know, there clearly was no win with that particular war.