The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

th ei fp .c a Th e IF P -H al to n H ill s | T hu rs da y, N ov em be r 28 ,2 01 9 | 10 John Oudyk has seen a lot of heartache in 40 years of helping patients exposed to industrial toxins. There was the woman who developed asthma from isocyanates in glue at work. She was moved to a dif- ferent department, but it was too late. During a lunch date with her former co-work- ers in her old department she collapsed, unable to breathe. Transported to hospital, she nearly died. There was the man who worked in Hamilton coke ovens. His dry cough and shortness of breath devel- oped into mesothelioma, a cancer linked to the asbes- tos in his gloves and coat protecting him from work- place heat. It killed him. He was in his 50s. Oudyk, an occupational hygienist since 1979, has many more stories of On- tarians hurt by toxins, but he always held out hope that industry would one day come clean. Which is why, when On- tario introduced its Toxics Reduction Act (TRA) in 2009, he was first in line to be trained as a licensed tox- ics planner. It was part of the TRA's mission to provide certi- fied planners to help busi- nesses find ways to avoid using and creating toxic substances. Oudyk was fuelled by optimism. Under the TRA, employers were required to submit reduction plans. While they weren't re- quired to follow through, "at least they went through the thought exercise and the hope was they'd maybe see the light and economic advantages," Oudyk said. But the rug was yanked out from under the pro- gram before it was fully rolled out. On April 3, the province announced it would be repealed effective Dec. 31, 2021 as part of the government's Bill 66 prom- ise to cut red tape for busi- ness. "The TRA was a beauti- ful opportunity," Oudyk said. "But none of the par- ties took advantage of it. It became a paper exercise." According to the Cana- dian Environmental Law Association, Ontario's emissions of toxic sub- stances to air, land, and wa- ter are some of the highest in North America. "The province is home to the largest chemical manufacturing industry in the country by far, with much denser populations," explains Peterborough en- vironmental lawyer David McRobert. "People in Ontario are exposed to the most toxins per capita, and probably more than most American states because federal and state environmental pro- tection standards are stronger." Muhannad Malas, toxics program manager with En- vironmental Defence, says he is "deeply troubled" that Ontario withdrew the TRA at a time when health au- thorities around the world are sounding alarms over the dangers of pollution. When the TRA was launched in 2010, modelled after a successful 30-year- old Massachusetts pro- gram, the idea was to en- courage facilities to reduce exposure to cancer-caus- ing and other harmful chemicals. The program provided an interactive map where citizens could search ad- dresses or businesses to see what toxins were being used, created, released, disposed and recycled in their own communities - and find out what those businesses planned to do about it. For 2018 data and on- wards, facilities with exist- ing toxics reduction plans will no longer be required to review them and facilities will no longer be required to develop new plans or report on their execution. Industry leaders like the Chemical Industry As- sociation of Canada hailed the move. It has been lobbying against the TRA since its inception, saying the TRA duplicated what's already in place with the federal program and created an additional regulatory bur- den on industry, with no discernible benefit. Criticism also came from toxic reduction plan- ners who were frustrated by the process and felt they had little success in mak- ing significant inroads. A quick look at the pub- lic documents show many of the industries that re- ported to the TRA had no intention of acting on re- duction plans. In their sub- mission to the ministry, some said the TRA should be axed. The provincial govern- ment decided industry was right - the TRA was dupli- cative and a burden, and had to go. Besides, prelimi- nary results showed mini- mal success - just a 0.04 per cent reduction overall in toxins. But many organiza- tions, environmentalists and health providers dis- agree. They argue the TRA was not given a fair chance. While 40 per cent of the reporting facilities indicat- ed they intended to imple- ment at least one reduction strategy, the program was repealed too soon to see consistent results, they say. What's more, 'next steps' in the program never saw light of day. One of those next steps was to roll out a list of high- ly hazardous chemicals not addressed by the federal program, Malas says. There were also plans to in- form consumers about chemical ingredients in products by implementing on-product labeling or oth- er ways of ingredient dis- closure, he says. As for the federal and SHOULD ONTARIO REDUCE TOXINS - OR REDUCE RED TAPE? John Oudyk, an occupational hygienist since 1979, says Ontario's Toxics Reduction Act was a beautiful opportunity. Bryon Johnson/Torstar KIM ZARZOUR kzarzour@yrmg.com NEWS ENVIRONMENTALISTS UPSET THAT OPEN FOR BUSINESS BILL SCRAPS TOXICS REDUCTION ACT To read the comprehensive Torstar Community Brands series, A Toxic Decision, go to theifp.ca/toxins A TOXIC DECISION The provincial government is repealing the Toxics Reduction Act, axing a voluntary reduction program that empowered you to see what toxins are used in the industrial facilities in your neighbourhood - and what they planned to do to reduce them. A Toxic Decision?, a Torstar Community Brands multi-part special series, takes an in-depth look at the impacts of the act's repeal and the program's cancellation.