My comments on the Proposed…

My comments on the Proposed Special Economic Zones Criteria; the Special Economic Zones Act and its proposed Regulation “Criteria for Designations” are as follows, structured around the Guiding Questions:

Project Criteria
1. Creating a new Special Economic Zone is meant to be used only for a narrow set of
circumstances when it is of the utmost importance to Ontario’s economy and/or
security. What criteria could be considered to ensure designation is only used in the most appropriate cases?
a) Designation by “opinion” of the Minister and “reassurances” by proponents (developed more in comments on transparency and accountability below) is a bad idea, inviting government corruption or the appearance of it.
b) Supervision by the Auditor General or other such independent, non-partisan role.
c) Assessment by independent, non-partisan economic experts.
d) Environmental assessments are not waived and a sincere, supervised plan is implemented by proponents to minimize/avoid habitat loss, protect vulnerable and critical habitats, protect species at risk of extinction, with real-time oversight by the Auditor General’s office and/or Conservation Authorities.
e) Projects that serve non-partisan interests such as “the environment”, affordability, housing: prioritize sustainable development, clean energy projects, minimal footprint projects, housing that prioritizes affordability and density (building up, in existing towns and cities) rather than sprawl.
f) If projects are perceived to be “left” or “right”, aim to have at least one of each… to be fair to citizens’ interests and priorities.
g) Criteria should not prioritize donors or perceived “buddies” of government officials/parties.

2. The importance of a zone or project is not always measured only in size or dollar
value. How else should the impact of a zone or project be considered?
a) FIRST: Least negative environmental impact, whether on species, habitat, farmland, watersheds, wetlands.
b) SECOND: Benefit to citizens through job creation or improved quality of life.

Whatever the political stripe of the government in power, the Earth/environment needs to be prioritized, as the Earth and all its ecosystems sustain humans.

3. Should potentially important ‘moon-shot’ projects be put forward if they could have
enormous impact, even if they have a low likelihood of success?
a) No, particularly as they will likely have negative impacts on nature and habitats.
b) No, because likely they will waste taxpayer money. The likelihood of failure is not worthwhile in our current times. If our government and individual financial precariousness were not so gigantic, perhaps moon-shot projects would be worth a gamble.

4. Which should be weighted more heavily when considering benefits – the benefit to
the province as a whole or the benefit to local communities? Or should they be
treated as equally important and essential?
a) I heard recently, “SEZs are by definition local, so the impact within the designated zone is most important.” I agree with prioritizing local, although I would be inclined to say the benefit to “both” the province and local communities should be considered.
b) It is not just to alienate and disenfranchise local communities.
c) It is wiser for government to work “with” people and communities that are willing: you will have more buy-in and waste less government resources. Conversely, don’t impose projects on unwilling communities as you will waste government (taxpayer) resources and time battling challenges.
d) Invite local communities/cities to offer ideas for projects and connect proponents with them.

Collaboration is an attractive and effective way to “get things done” within human communities, rather than by heavy-handed imposition which tends to generate backlash and resistance.

5. Designating a zone, project, and proponent requires specific new regulations. Furthermore, any regulatory modifications or exemptions that may be made for projects and proponents in a designated zone will also require a new regulation. Normal regulatory processes will be followed, including posting on the ERO and Regulatory Registry. What else could be considered to provide greater transparency?
a) See my comments below on Transparency and Accountability.
b) Reinstate Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights for the Species Conservation Act. Some exemptions under the SEZs Act will fall under the oversight of the SCA: the public should retain the right to be informed of how regulatory exemptions will impact species and habitats. Yes, you have retained Parts IV, V and VII of the ERO for the SCA, but it is rather “sleight of hand”. How can citizens intentionally kept ignorant by their government speak up about issues that may be important to them; about which they may have local insight?

6. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?
a) Designations on zones, projects and proponents made strictly by Cabinet/LGIC or the MEDJCT is autocratic, undemocratic, lacking transparency. It would be better to have the legislative assembly involved by vote or an independent, non-partisan figure/group participate in designations.

 
Proponent Criteria

1. What should be used to determine whether compliance standards are met? Which
compliance records from Ontario, Canada, or internationally should be provided as
evidence? Over what time period? What other requirements should there be for
proponents?
a) In Ontario or Canada, whatever are the highest compliance standards possible. For treatment of species/habitat, compliance with the now repealed Endangered Species Act is a higher standard than the new Species Conservation Act.
b) Time period: Past 20 years, perhaps? I hope you can get wisdom from “experts” on this.
c) Other requirements: track record of project completion, harm repair/mitigation (e.g. if there has been water or land contamination, the proponent works to clean up the mess until completion). Track record of fidelity to commitments (considering how we have just been burned by Stellantis, to which our governments gave billions of dollars).

2. What, if any, special considerations should be given to whether companies from other jurisdictions can be designated as trusted?
a) For international proponents (which should be kept to a minimum; what is their interest for the wellbeing of the land and people of Ontario?), we should seek evidence that is comparable to Canadian and Ontarian standards (or standards from other jurisdictions that are more rigorous than ours).
b) Could someone in the office of the Auditor General assist with the assessment of proposed proponents?

3. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?
a) Specific, unannounced assessments, inspections, oversight during the entirety of project activities by non-partisan experts in the field to ensure ongoing compliance with what proponents have promised.
b) Perhaps Indigenous peoples should weigh in on – even approve – whether proponents have the integrity and capacity to work fairly with their communities.

Zone Criteria
1. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?
a) The last point in the table from the Indigenous Communities Consultation Feedback is important, that you have opted to exclude from the proposed regulations: Restrict zone designation in areas of environmental or cultural significance or subject to ongoing land claims.
b) Designate zones with prudent respect for/maintenance of wildlife corridors, migratory routes, watershed boundaries, at-risk status of species. A minor example: in other jurisdictions, wildlife bridges are built that help species stay connected with the full extent of their habitat rather than have it fragmented by high-speed roadways.

Indigenous Communities
As a descendent of non-Indigenous people who benefited from harms done to Indigenous populations in Ontario, all reconciliation work is very important to me. It is very important to me that Indigenous people are comprehensively included in all economic development projects: development of land (also, “destruction of land”), extraction projects, infrastructure development. I am not the authority to speak on behalf of Indigenous peoples, but I think that they should benefit economically from projects that take place in their territories / lands of residence, and Ontario as a whole. I think that cultural artifacts that are unearthed in projects should be handled in accordance with the practices of the communities.

I think it would be important to seriously consider and integrate the “Feedback Still Under Consideration” in the document “Indigenous Communities Consultation Feedback”:
• Indigenous led-proposals, including how an Indigenous-led business could be defined.
• Extent of Indigenous participation in a project. I suggest participation by numerous people from impacted communities (not just one person) is important. (Unless the community only wants just one person).
• Creating oversight/advisory bodies. This is very important.
• Assessing social and cultural impacts. This is very important.
• Assessing cumulative impacts. This is very important.
• Resource revenue sharing and/or community benefit agreements. This is very important.
• How international companies are considered.
• Designating Indigenous governments as trusted proponents.

In terms of “consultation” with Indigenous communities, it is important to consult in accordance with the norms of Indigenous peoples. Again, I am not an authority, but speaking from what I have observed and heard in my years, my understanding is that consultation likely needs more time as the communities respectfully involve as many of their members as possible, not just a few representatives. I have understood that there is an intention to find consensus, not just majority: this takes time but ultimately generates a smoother process.

I think it’s important to take Indigenous peoples/communities seriously when they self-identify as “stewards of the land”. I think it’s important to sincerely respect the ceremonial acts that Indigenous peoples bring to “our” relationship with the land. I think Ontario and Canada can learn and benefit from this perspective; and would do well to integrate this mentality into laws and works in the province/country. Whether we are Indigenous or not, we are all human and ultimately dependent on the Earth for our lives. My wish / vision / dream is that my country (and province) is an exemplar of how to build prosperous societies WHILE fully respecting the needs of the Earth (species, habitats). I firmly believe that as humans, whatever our political stripes, we are not doomed to the dichotomy of EITHER economy or environment/Earth. We will be ultimately much stronger, healthier and more prosperous when we diligently “steward” BOTH environment/Earth (first) AND (then) economy.

Transparency and Accountability – general points
1. The language used in the Indigenous Communities Consultation Feedback document: Ontario and the Ministry are “committed to” fulfilling its duty to consult or to acting in a manner consistent with its obligations under section 35 (…) is not reassuring. For example, many politicians make commitments during election campaigns, but once elected renege for various reasons. Let’s not make SEZs “Colonialism 2.0”. Times have changed, knowledge is more robust, understandings have deepened: we are no longer in the era of ramming through the massive infrastructure projects “at all costs” as our forebears did (e.g. reversing the flow of rivers, hydroelectric dams, building in floodplains, rampant deforestation, building over wetlands, etc.

2. In sections 2 & 3 of the proposed regulation, the language “in the opinion of the Minister” leaves the door wide open for corruption. It doesn’t indicate that decisions will be made based on facts, sound knowledge, science, or in the best interests of local communities, Ontarians, or the environment.
a. Particularly, in determining the trustworthiness of “trusted proponents”, saying that “the person has given reassurances”: Section 2.3.i reminds me of the questionable financial background discovered about Therme Spa. Section 2.3.ii reminds me of the recent Stellantis betrayal. I’m sure that those two organizations (persons) “gave reassurances”.
b. As for the Crown being a “trusted proponent”, I wonder if the current government would entrust governments of other parties (in the future) with what you are legalizing for your government? The current government demonstrates a long track record of generating suspicion about its motives, interests, accountability, and its lack of serious and sincere regard for the environment. I believe this has generating delays for progressing on major projects and developments:
i. the Greenbelt Scandal (showing advantage to donor-developers and a disregard for the intelligence of Ontarians),
ii. Therme Spa/Ontario Place (deforesting it so that the ecosystem there had to encroach – with deadly consequences – on nearby residential areas),
iii. the Science Centre (the roof is still intact),
iv. the Dresden Dump (waiving the Environmental Assessment in favour of a generous donor),
v. the sale of a major portion of Wasaga Beach freshwater beachfront to development (nevermind species at risk and critical habitat),
vi. using taxpayer dollars to promote the Ring of Fire development, neglecting to mention that it is situated in a globally significant peatland – a very sensitive ecosystem, a major carbon sink – and other important points about which Indigenous peoples have more authority to elaborate.
vii. Banning speed cameras, despite statistics from hospitals, police organizations and municipalities (and outcry from local citizens) that they are effective at reducing speeding and improving safety; and implementing this “easy win for your base” (or for your Cabinet minister who was racking up speeding tickets) before other traffic calming measures could be installed or when contracts naturally came to an end.
viii. Encroaching on municipalities’ authority to oblige developers to build in a more environmentally responsible way.
ix. And most recently, the idea to seize ownership of sections of Exhibition Place, a tremendous asset of the City of Toronto.

3. In the section of the regulation “Designated Projects”, Sections 3.2.iii, 3.3.iv, 3.4.v mention “such other factors as the Minister considers appropriate.” I understand that this is a useful phrase (like in a job description, “other duties as assigned”), to cover factors that could not be anticipated at the point of drafting the regulation. However, this seems like the unlocked door, inviting corruption to the Minister’s opinions. Those factors could include how friendly the trusted proponents are to the government, the donor generosity of trusted proponents who are proposing projects.

4. In the Special Economic Zones Act and in the proposed regulation there is mention of LGIC, Lieutenant Governor on Council, making regulations. At the top of the ERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) posting for this regulation, it is noted that the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade (MEDJCT) is not required to post any regulatory proposals to the ERO. If the designation of SEZs, trusted proponents and projects will all be made by regulations, but the MEDJCT is not required to inform Ontarians of these proposed regulations, it seems to me that transparency and accountability are forfeited.

5. I know the time has passed for comment on the SEZ Act itself, but Section 7 “Extinguishment of causes of action” and “proceedings barred” deserves mention here. This sounds like the government saying “we are not accountable” for negative consequences on citizens or the environment that ensue from SEZs and the regulations. I’m sure the intent is to “cut red tape” and minimize delays from inconvenient legal proceedings, but it’s anti-democratic.

Thank you for giving time and consideration to my thoughts as a citizen of Ontario.