The Ontario Federation of…

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Foundation (OFAH Foundation) is dedicated to preserving Ontario's natural heritage through conservation research, habitat restoration, and educational initiatives that promote sustainable outdoor activities. As a leader in conservation, we work collaboratively with partners, experts, and communities throughout Ontario to protect and enhance fish and wildlife populations for today and future generations. We have reviewed ERO 025-1077: “Consultation on Proposed Special Economic Zones Criteria” and offer the following comments for consideration.

OFAH Foundation remains seriously concerned about the creation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) as currently proposed. Land-use planning is complex and necessitates case by case analyses and strict checks and balances to ensure projects do not result in irreversible damages to the environment and people. While exemptions are appropriate in extenuating circumstances, the application of general exemptions to critical pieces of legislation like the Planning Act and the ESA/SCA will most likely result in abuses of natural heritage. Any discussion of potential “criteria” for zones, projects, or proponents should not be interpreted as support for the initiative but is intended to illustrate the scale of safeguards that would be necessary to protect Ontario’s environment and resource users.

Posting discussion 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?

SEZ designation should not be used to exempt or weaken existing environmental standards. The only appropriate cases would be those that can demonstrate full compliance with all existing Acts (ESA/SCA, Planning Act, Clean Water Act, CA Act, etc.) and low likelihood of long-term environmental damage, making designation redundant.

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?

Impact must also be measured in ecological risk and precedent-setting potential. A project with even minor ecological degradation could easily carry a long-term cost far exceeding short-term gains.

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?

Low-likelihood projects with uncertain outcomes increase risk, the opposite of what is required for sound resource management and are, therefore, unlikely to justify exemptions from environmental law.

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?
N/A

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?

Transparency should include:

- Full disclosure of proposed exemptions and their consequences;

- Third-party environmental review and Indigenous consultation;

- Posting all supporting documents and assessments (not summaries) to the ERO, with opportunity for public comment;

- Public engagement events such as town-halls, webinars, etc.;

- Mechanisms for public appeals; and

- Project monitoring and reporting requirements.

6. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?

The most critical missing criteria is a demonstrated need for exemption.
SEZ designation should not proceed unless the proponent proves why compliance with existing environmental law is impossible, and why the project justifies the exemption.

Proponent Criteria

7. 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?

Only a full compliance record demonstrating consistent adherence to all provincial and municipal regulations should be considered. Any proponent that has previously sought regulatory relief, violated permits, or failed to meet remediation obligations should be ineligible.

8. What, if any, special considerations should be given to whether companies from other jurisdictions can be designated as trusted?
N/A

9. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?

There must be a mechanism for revoking “trusted” status if a proponent violates environmental standards or fails to uphold public commitments, and there must also, therefore, be a monitoring regime in place.

Zone Criteria

10. Are any criteria missing? Should any be added, removed or modified?

The following are essential criteria:

- Ecological impact screening: No zone should be established without independent ecological assessment confirming negligible cumulative impacts.

- Time limits and review clauses: Zones must have defined expiry dates, requiring re-justification and public re-approval.

- Net gain: Any habitat, wetland, or watershed loss within a zone must be offset to an equal or greater ecological function as a condition of designation, through high offsetting ratios.

Discretion and Distribution of Power

The proposed criteria for Special Economic Zones will concentrate power almost entirely with the Minister. While it is true that decision-making is often informed by the Minister’s priorities and that ministerial decision-making powers have existed for use in exceptional circumstances, the proposed level of control is unprecedented and may be inconsistent with the principles of Canada's Rule of Law, which indicates that laws must not be arbitrary, must not be of unlimited scope, and must not grant unfettered discretion.

The personal opinion of one or more political figures is inadequate when it comes to assessing the trustworthiness of a given proponent, and it is certainly not sufficient justification for a blanket exemption to critical legislation like the Planning Act or Endangered Species Act/Species Conservation Act. We strongly recommend MECP leave most decision-making power in the hands of experts in merit-based positions of authority.

Conclusion

OFAH Foundation believes that responsible economic development can occur only within the framework of Ontario’s existing environmental legislation. The creation of Special Economic Zones, as currently proposed, undermines that framework rather than improving it. We would welcome the opportunity to work directly with the province to develop more effective and responsible land-use legislation for the future.