Some of the wording of the…

Some of the wording of the plan concerns me. E.g.,

"Repeal the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 by 2021, remove the toxics reduction plan in 2019 and rely on the robust and science-based Federal Chemicals Management Plan"

This sounds good. However, it is similar language used by the George W. Bush administration (they used "sound science"). The much repeated "sound science" phrase was really just a cover-up term for the administration to reject inconvenient facts. Any facts that hampered their ideological goals of business, development, the economy, the market were dismissed, with the reason being given "they're not based on sound science". Often they'd point to a think-tank or research group who were re-evaluating the "old science"; but that research group was heavily weighted by industry insiders and lobbyists who would profit if they could cast doubt on the previous science. It was the proverbial foxes guarding the hen houses.

In reality they "old science" was still quite sound, was backed up by scientific academies around the world. "Sound science" as used by the GWB administration became a euphemism for "my ideology trumps your facts".

Given that history, and given that Ford has already displayed the naked greed that makes him an ideologue who puts short-term profits ahead of everything else (while in city council and now as premier), I strongly suspect he's using the GWB playbook of letting industry make decisions rather than independent regulatory bodies (under Harper we saw short-sighted harmful legislation being tabled that was nearly word for word bills written by oil and gas lobbyists; same in the US).

Let's try and avoid that again, please? Bill 66 just seems to have too many traps hidden among the pretty sounding words. It sounds too much like other bills that were supposed to improve the economy, bring back jobs, but in reality were just wish lists for developers, oil and gas and petrochemical industry who wanted to go back to a time when rules were much more lax (we are still paying for our fathers' and grandfathers' short-sighted decisions when it came to development, pollution control, protection of habitat, etc).

In summary, there is often a good reason regulations are in place. Bringing in consulting groups who stand to profit if those regulations is now just idiotic because we have ample evidence that this approach. DOES. NOT. WORK. to protect people and the environment. Please do better. Just because the only tool you have is a hammer does not mean everything you see can be treated like a nail.

Thank you.