I strongly opposes this…

I strongly opposes this proposal and request the repeal of Bill 5. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 violates the rule of law and undermines the rights of Indigenous communities, the public and nature. The draft regulation and SEZA should be withdrawn in full.
With respect to SEZ it should not be up to the discretion of the Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council to decide whether SEZ designation criteria have been met . Instead an evidence-based approach is necessary where criteria are clearly defined and measurable, and there are oversight mechanisms to increase public participation in and transparency of designation decisions.

The law must respect and uphold Indigenous rights and sovereignty by enabling their meaningful participation, equitable benefit sharing, mandating the assessment of social, cultural, environmental and cumulative impacts, and explicitly referencing the rights and principles enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , including Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

The threat of SEZs operating outside of the law would allow the province to decide what - if any - laws apply to designated projects/proponents within a SEZ. This is also unacceptable .

The draft regulation does not clarify how “economic significance” and “strategic importance” are defined or measured, giving the government the power to unilaterally designate a SEZ if they think undefined and unmeasurable criteria have been met. There is no requirement for the cultural or ecological significance of the zone to be considered.

The criteria for a Designated Project is largely subject to the Minister’s opinion, giving the Minister power to unilaterally designate a project and not consider if the project will provide benefits to Indigenous communities. Further, the Minister does not have to consider that work has been done to identify potential impacts on health and the environment or that risk mitigation strategies have been identified.

Ministerial discretion to designate a Trusted Proponent remains highly unrestrained as the criteria subject to the Minister’s opinion and satisfaction, has no definition or explanation of what constitutes a “good record of complying” or a “history of working successfully with Indigenous communities”. There is no requirement for Indigenous communities to be engaged, and no clarity around which Indigenous communities would be engaged or how they would be identified and notified.

This is not an evidence-based approach and risks decreasing transparency in decision-making and public trust in the government.
There are no stated requirements for the Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council to provide reasoning and/or evidence in support of their opinions. Without any oversight or appeal mechanisms, the Minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council have near unrestricted powers to issue designations which will have far reaching social, economic, cultural and environmental impacts. This is unacceptable.

The draft regulations and policy intent documents do not identify public participation in decision-making as a priority or as a right that will be respected. The public will not have an opportunity to have their say when a designation is being considered, nor be able to appeal any designation decisions. Further, there are no specific information disclosure requirements regarding the designation process. The province ought to respect every person’s right to be informed and have a say by establishing information disclosure requirements (such as a public registry) and mechanisms to participate.

Indigenous rights and sovereignty must be respected and advanced. The draft regulation does not include any mention of Indigenous rights, including commitments to reconciliation, respect for Indigenous self-determination, or Indigenous inclusion in decision-making.
Input from consultation with Indigenous communities includes several issues including concerns the designation processes lack oversight, transparency and participation mechanisms and do not consider social, environmental and cumulative impacts. The document clarifies that this feedback “is not reflected in the current draft proposed regulation.” This lack is unacceptable.

Notwithstanding Ontario has continuously claimed Indigenous communities will benefit from the economic growth facilitated by the SEZA, Ontario is not implementing the feedback Indigenous communities provided regarding what’s needed for them to benefit equitably, including: revenue sharing, employment and other benefits from projects within their territories, clarity around how Indigenous-led projects, Indigenous proponents or Indigenous governments could be designated.
Failing to incorporate this feedback sends a clear message that the Ontario government is not interested in advancing ‘economic reconciliation’.

Remove the threat of SEZs operating outside of the law. Once the criteria has been satisfied to create a SEZ the government can create exemptions or modifications to permits, approvals or other legal requirements for designated projects and proponents in those designated zones. This is not acceptable. No government should have the ability to choose what - if any - permitting processes apply to designated projects/proponents, and restrict or eliminate the application of specified laws and regulations within a SEZ. To fast track a project, the government could skip key procedures aimed at protecting the health of communities and the environment, or choose to exclude all or some aspects of employment and labours laws aimed at upholding workers’ rights, health and safety. This is not acceptable.
Our government must uphold the Rule Of Law and have clear measurable criteria for its decision making , and provide oversight, all of which is missing in this proposed regulation. Repeal Bill 5 and do not enact this regulation.