I am commenting to express…

I am commenting to express my profound opposition to Bill 4, Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 on both economic and environmental grounds. Replacing a functional action -- in this a financial disincentive (cap) with a positive (trade) in order to reduce something undesired (essentially a 'sin tax' on greenhouse gas and contaminants) -- with empty "targets" and "plans" is not remotely sufficient, particularly in light of the recent IPCC report on the need for urgent *action* on climate.

As noted in this Forbes article by a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center on William Nordhaus receiving the Nobel Prize for economics this week for work on carbon pricing, "a carbon tax, is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through, say, regulatory limits on cars and power plants. Higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products as well as encourage new technologies that will make those substitutes competitive. This has become the mainstream view among economists."

There are few better "taxes" than the ones taxes levied on negatives that can be reduced (greenhouse gas and contaminants) instead of 'positives' (homes, businesses, and the goods purchased for the survival of both).

Ontario is currently noted to have a deficit of at least $12 billion dollars on top of a massive debt load. Eliminating programs that bring in revenue against an undesired item, that will make us appear as untrustworthy trading partners, and throw businesses who had participated into the program into chaos is irrational. This is even before you consider where the funds raised should be used. Many will feel it should go toward this deficit, others may feel that is a 'tax grab', in which case the issue is best resolved by specifically using the funding to invest in fostering businesses and family practices that also reduce GHGs and otherwise stimulate the economy.

The businesses that are producing GHGs and contaminants must be made to account for them through mechanisms like this as otherwise they have no incentive to reduce them and will instead continue to pass on the social, environmental, and health costs of these on to the public.

No *action* like a functioning Cap and Trade program should ever be allowed to be cancelled without an equally powerful *action* replacing it -- the requirement to develop 'plans' and 'targets' are not remotely good enough. Develop these first, put into effect the new *actions* from the plan that are to be taken and if the expert consensus is that these *actions* will have the desired effect on reducing GHGs and contaminants only then proceed with replacing the current *action* with the new one(s).