In the dead of winter, 2025, the Ford government called a snap election 15 months early under the pretence of needing a mandate to address Trump’s tariff threat.
Soon after being re-elected with a third majority government on February 27th (with 43% of the popular vote), the Ford government introduced the omnibus Bill 5, titled Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. This act incorporated the Special Economic Zones Act, which allows the government to designate specific areas as special economic zones (SEZs), in which proponents for ‘strategically important projects’ would get fast-track permission and exemptions from regulations.
The government says special status and expedited approvals are necessary to attract investment and jobs. However, the plan immediately attracted strong criticism and public resistance concerning its potential impacts on Indigenous rights, the environment, labour standards and government accountability. The Narwhal described it as “Ontario heading down a dangerous road.”
While there was no public consultation prior to introducing the Act, in a post-facto consultation on the draft regulations, the government opened a portal on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO). In this online database the public was given a chance to view and comment on the proposed regulations.
The Ontario Project group of Seniors for Climate Action Now! (SCAN!) took advantage of the opportunity to submit the following feedback, not expecting it to be taken seriously by this autocratic government, but to be on the public record:
We are deeply concerned that the language in the draft regulations for The Special Economic Zones Act puts too much discretionary power in the office of the Minister. The disproportionate reliance on the “opinion of the Minister” to make key determinations fundamentally undermines the process and the purpose of developing criteria.
The government’s recent history with programs and initiatives relying on Ministerial discretion rather than clear criteria is reason enough to argue for a comprehensive and measured process of evaluation independent of the Minister’s opinion.
It was the opinion of a minister that rewarded certain developers, friends of the government, with special treatment around Greenbelt lands—a situation still under investigation by the police. It was the opinion of a Minister that led to the situation where skills development funds were used to inappropriately support certain businesses, again those that were friends of the government.
The current draft regulation fails to provide clear and transparent criteria for the development of special economic zones nor the selection and conduct of those who plan to operate in the zone.
Instead of objective measures the regulation relies on the ‘opinion of the Minister’.
The draft regulation is just over three pages. The phrase ‘in the opinion of the Minister’ or some variant is used seven times. Add in the sections referring to ‘the Minister is satisfied’ and situations that are “satisfactory to the Minister” and the number goes up. In fact, every substantive section defines the range, scope, and scale of what the Minister’s opinion can determine. This is how democracy gets eroded, one minister’s opinion after another.
Of particular concern, the draft regulation allows the government to avoid proper consultation with First Nations. The environment minister has the authority to decide whether a “trusted proponent” has a plan for engaging and working with Indigenous communities. However, there is nothing that requires that the “trusted proponent” uphold Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the duty to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples regarding initiation of projects.
The shortcomings of Bill 5 and the Special Economic Zones Act are not addressed by the draft regulation. The exemptions of designated projects to archaeological and environmental assessments are still there. The erosion of endangered species protections continues. The lack of transparency for mining claims remains a hallmark of the legislation. Bill 5 and the Special Economic Zones Act bypasses rights to consultation of both Indigenous peoples and the general public and the draft regulation reinforces this troubling development.
The draft regulation fails to protect the public interest.
*****
Beryl Pilkington is a member of SCAN!’s Ontario Project group.
If you found this blog post interesting and informative, please consider joining the Education Committee and helping with our work. We also welcome comments and feedback. Please contact Sue Craig at susan.craig@sympatico.ca