First and foremost, this…

First and foremost, this type of consultation should have been conducted BEFORE any bill was presented to the legislature for review. Consultation of citizens is an important and vital part of our Ontario democracy and should not be ignored for the sake of squeezing this bill through quickly.

Second, I am against the repeal of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act of 2016. I do not agree with the Government's claims when it comes to their reasons for wanting to repeal this Act. The Government wanted to repeal this act well before they were elected and made this decision based on absolutely no research (or consultation) into the effectiveness of a Cap & Trade program. Their claims that Cap & Trade programs do not work are incorrect and the opposite case is actually backed up by peer-reviewed, non-partisan scientific studies.

Third, I have serious issues with several statements made in Bill 4, which I will outline below.

(a) Section 3(1) states (briefly) that the Government will establish targets for the reduction of GHGs in Ontario -- yet it provides absolutely no timeline as to when these targets will be established and/or what science these targets will be based upon. Any and all targets should be set based on sound scientific analysis conducted by climate change experts, NOT the opinions of politicians. I see no mention of any scientific analysis or consultation in Bill 4 and do not trust that the Government will do this on its own.

(b) Section 4(1) states (again, briefly) that the Minister shall prepare a climate change plan. As with Section 3(1), absolutely no timeline is included, nor any mention of HOW this plan will be developed. As with 3(1), such plans should be based on sound scientific evidence with the advice of climate change experts, NOT the opinions of politicians.

With regards to both 3(1) and 4(1), the way in which these sections are written means that there is absolutely no incentive for the Government to actually establish targets and/or develop a plan. In other words, these sections provide citizens of Ontario absolutely NO guarantee that the Government has any plan to replace the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act of 2016. That is disturbing, to say the least.

(c) Sections 3(1) and 4(1) both state that the Government and Minister may revise targets and plans from "time to time." Ironically, no timeline is included in Bill 4, so there is no context for what "time to time" means. Such targets and plans should not be changed on a whim, and should only be changed when scientific evidence supports such a change. This should be stated explicitly in Bill 4.

(d) Section 4(2) states that the Minister may appoint panels to perform advisory functions for the climate change plan. I completely agree that advisory panels are required for such a plan. However, based on the words in Bill 4, this advisory council could consist of nothing but PC politicians, or lay people, or friends of the Minister, etc. Any such panels MUST include climate change experts (Canadians and non-Canadians) who can provide a non-partisan point-of-view on what is needed. Panels should also include citizens from around the province (not just the GTA) who have differing views on such targets and plans so that the needs of the people are included. And finally, these panels should also consist of representatives from ENGOs across Ontario. None of these specifics are mentioned and therefore gives me absolutely no confidence that such panels will be created and/or they'll be created with people who are biased.

Fourth, on the evening of Friday, October 5th, Premier Doug Ford was interviewed on the 6 pm CTV Toronto news. Ironically, he was in Alberta at the time, so was unable to be interviewed in person. He was in Alberta because he was attending a Conservative rally to show his support for eliminating the Alberta Carbon Tax. Premier Ford has more than enough problems here in Ontario to worry about. He does NOT need to be going to Alberta for Trump-like rallies.

However, the part of the interview that disturbed me the most was when Premier Ford was asked what his climate change plan was if he didn't want Cap & Trade, a Carbon Tax, or a program from the Federal government. His response was that he "trusted" Ontario businesses to do the right thing! What's interesting about that is it completely contradicts Sections 3 and 4 in Bill 4 which state emissions targets and a climate change plan are to be developed. Trusting businesses to do the right thing is NOT a plan. It is the lack of a plan. It's also totally and completely ridiculous. First off, what is the "right thing"? How is that defined? What does it include and exclude? Who determines what the "right thing" is, businesses? Second, Premier Ford stated that any business who didn't do the "right thing" would be held accountable. How can anyone be held accountable when no one knows what the "right thing" is? And when and if they're held accountable, what does that accountability consist of?

Premier Ford's statements on CTV were disturbing, disappointing, uneducated, and not evidence-based.

The part that disappoints me the most is the fact that Premier Ford is asking us to trust the future of the human race to businesses who, in general, care more about profit than anything else. Businesses, like people, work better when given incentives to change (i.e., a cap and trade program or a carbon tax). Businesses AND people do no change just because it's the right thing to do. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Altruism is dead. It no longer exists. And to trust businesses -- the same businesses, by the way, that environmental regulations had to be created because of -- is completely and totally naive.

Conclusion: I do not want to see Bill 4 implemented. I do not want the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act of 2016 to be repealed. I do not want to see the end of the Cap and Trade program. Bill 4 is incomplete and non-committal on any and all of its promises. Bill 4 does not provide Ontario, Canada, and/or the World any protection from the dangerous effects of climate change. The cost to be reactive (e.g., paying to respond to natural disasters like the tornados in the Ottawa area) is way more expensive than the cost to be proactive.