The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Haldimand-Norfolk has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given yesterday by the Minister of the Environment.

The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Yesterday, I did ask a question of the Minister of the Environment to which the minister claimed to have no knowledge of the details which I referenced, so for purposes of background, I’m quoting the minister on that one. I’d like to read part of my questions and part of the minister’s answers into the record so that we’re all on the same page here.

In my question, I asked, “Can you explain to this House why on earth you’re forcing the food and the feed industry to report as toxic products things like Ontario-grown wheat, soybeans, as well as malted barley, chocolate, sugar and other baking ingredients? These products aren’t toxic. Why would you do this, Minister?” That’s on the record.

I’ll just scan down to the minister’s response. He stated, “I would be more than pleased to meet with the member on these particular issues that he’s talking about. I’m not familiar with the exact details as to why those particular materials would be excluded….”

I had a supplementary and I queried, referring to the food and feed industry, “What do they tell consumers who learn that the products containing common food-based ingredients are, in the eyes of this government, stigmatized as toxic? This will be a public relations nightmare for the industry.” And then I specifically asked, “Will you exempt the feed and food production companies from reporting as toxic the most basic of food ingredients?”

The minister stated that “there are no food ingredients on the list. So I don’t know exactly what this member is talking about….

“That’s what this is all about, and we are not including any food ingredients on the draft list.”

That’s what went on yesterday. With these words fresh in our minds, I’d like to take a minute to explain to the minister the details of my query; I don’t know whether he has been briefed in the interim. As well, I seek an answer with respect to the minister’s intention regarding exemptions for food and feed production from reporting as toxic, again, the most basic of food ingredients. While the minister stated, “We are not including any food ingredients on the draft list,” he knows, or should know by now, that upon further examination, this is not the case.

While he and the ministry can play word games and contend that a word, “flour” for example, is not listed on the toxic substance list, the fact is that particulate matter is to be reported by companies as toxic. In turn, flour, as well as other powder-like ingredients-chocolate, for example-can be ground up into particulate matter. That’s really what I’m driving at: While food may not be listed on the toxic regulations, particulate matter is listed-you don’t deny that-and when it comes down to it, the particulate matter is the food. The particulate matter is the flour, if I go back to that example.

The ministry can’t say that particulate matter is toxic without also saying that that particular food product is toxic, because the particulate matter and the food are the same thing. It makes no sense for the ministry to suggest that anyone, especially consumers, make a distinction between food particulate matter and the food itself. Again, I suggest that the minister hasn’t even considered the impact and the stigmatization this will have on the Ontario food and feed industry and, by extension, Ontario farmers. Maybe he doesn’t care; I don’t know.

Clearly, food processors outside of our borders will not receive the same toxic treatment. In fact, this is just one more impediment-it creates an unlevel playing field-with respect to doing business in this province.

Again, I’d ask the minister to rescind this backward-thinking proposition and exempt the food industry from reporting requirements.

Further, the minister’s suggestion that he didn’t know what I was talking about seems highly questionable, given that his staff met with food industry reps. The member for Oxford raised this in the House and described the negative impact that would happen, then he read the October 9 article by Christina Blizzard titled, “Province’s New Rules Bite Producers Who”-

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. The minister has up to five minutes to respond.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me be absolutely clear that food ingredients like chocolate, wheat, barley and soybeans are not on Ontario’s proposed list of substances. Ontario’s proposed list of substances is based on the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory, the NPRI, which includes substances that are known to be harmful to the environment or to human health, including a number of carcinogens. They are also included on the federal CEPA toxic list as well as on the US federal Toxics Release Inventory.

So let’s be absolutely clear: The list that I have here, and I’d be more than pleased to send it over to the member, does not include food ingredients. It does include particulate matter.

As we well know, certain manufacturing processes, such as the milling and grinding of grains or the smoking of meats, produce substances known as particulate matter, which are known to be harmful to human health and the environment. In this case, it’s not the type of particulates that are harmful, but it’s the size that creates the problem, and the member well knows that. He knows that regardless of the source, particulate matter is a key component in the formation of smog, which contributes to over 9,000 premature deaths in Ontario each and every year.

In addition, some additives, preserves and food dyes are on Ontario’s proposed list of substances. While provincial and federal legislation permits certain uses of these substances at specific levels, we are proposing to require manufacturers, including food and feed processors, to consider options to reduce their use or creation of these substances where possible or when safer alternatives exist. That’s really what our toxics reduction law is all about.

Draft regulations will not compromise existing food safety laws and guidelines. In fact, the agriculture sector is exempt. Reporting on these substances is not new for manufacturers. In fact, food manufacturers already report to the federal government and to the public, on their releases, over 20 substances, including particulate matter.

Ontario, as we well know, with this act is taking an innovative approach, one which focuses on inputs, reducing toxic substances at the beginning of the industrial process. This has proven in other jurisdictions to be an effective way of encouraging facilities to use or create less of these substances or, if possible, use a safer alternative.

Under this approach, facilities are required to track and quantify the toxic substances used or created at the facility, as well as to undertake toxic substance reduction planning. While planning is mandatory, implementation of the plans, as the member well knows, is voluntary. That builds on but does not duplicate the existing federal need to report to the National Pollutant Release Inventory.

Some of Ontario’s leading manufacturers have demonstrated that investments to reduce toxics can result in increased competitive advantage, creating new business opportunities and reducing risks. This approach is protective of human health and the environment while supporting the transformation of businesses in Ontario to the new green economy. In fact, the government is investing, of our tax dollars, over $24 million to help support industry for green chemistry alternatives and to reduce the use of toxics in operations, including grants for small businesses, site-specific technical assistance from experts, and the training and accreditation of toxic reduction planners.

My ministry has been happy to meet with many of the individual stakeholders. I’ve met with a number as well. I might just indicate to you what the result has been in Washington state, which has a similar law to what we’re proposing here. Let me just report directly from the Toxic Reduction Advisory Committee that they set up to find out what happened after 20 years.

Almost 20 years ago, the state Legislature established a pollution prevention program similar to this to eliminate or reduce hazardous waste and hazardous substances. The businesses that implemented the plans reported a reduction in hazardous waste generation and hazardous substance use of over 200 million pounds. Financial savings from these reductions have saved businesses an estimated $400 million.

That’s been the experience in Washington state. Undoubtedly, we will have the same experience here, and the environment and all of us will be the better for it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.