‘No...full stop...You must not become Donald Trump, to protect against Donald Trump’: Ford’s Bill 5 will give PCs unchecked power

“Terrible idea that will only harm biodiversity and ecosystem health for the profit of corporate interests.”

“Experts will be consulted, maybe, but in the meantime, why not put highways through rich farmland and build expensive houses for the moneyed citizens when homes for the less fortunate in this very expensive society are what's really required? The premier has already shown his anti-environment view of this province and this world, I should be ashamed of myself for thinking things would get better.”

“This act is wrong in dismantling the Endangered Species Act. Our wildlife seriously needs protection.

The act is too wide ranging in what it considers special economic zones—and it seems that some developers would be too quickly rubber stamped to proceed.”

“I am specifically concerned about the “vetting” process that may occur in a special economic zone. What are the criteria for determining a reliable proponent and how are we defining “high standards” for operation, safety and the environment? I’m very skeptical of how a regulator can assess environmental compliance when there will no longer be a need for adherence to some environmental or natural resource regulation/legislation.”

“Wow, this is one of the most outrageous proposals I have ever seen. It threatens the environment and predominantly Indigenous communities within these proposed "Special Economic Zones". This is authoritarian governance - green lighting whatever projects with no restrictions or cautions for clean water, climate impacts, clean up and making sure the polluter pays, etc etc. This is pretty much equal to Trump's "Executive Orders" - doing whatever he wants at all cost.”

“‘No...full stop...You must not become Donald Trump, to protect against Donald Trump.’”

These are excerpts from the most recent of hundreds of comments Ontario residents submitted to Doug Ford’s provincial government in response to new legislation known as the “Special Economic Zones Act”, which falls under Bill 5, the “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act”.

The messages from residents are in response to the draft language outlining the spectacular power Ford’s cabinet will have to approve projects within certain parts of the province that would, according to politicians, advance Ontario’s economic interests.

Residents from across the province gathered in front of Queen’s Park in June to protest Bill 5.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

The vague language throughout the proposed framework is just one of many problems residents and other critics are highlighting since the recent release of the draft legislation: “Once a zone is set up, designated projects and proponents who are designated as trusted proponents can access things like faster permitting; modifying or exempting some permits and approvals; and/or simplified requirements.”

In other words, it will be at the discretion of senior cabinet officials to approve projects with next to no regulatory oversight to protect bodies of water, sensitive ecosystems, airsheds, greenspaces and ensure proper engagement with Indigenous groups and First Nations: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, exempt a trusted proponent or a designated project from requirements under provisions of an Act or of a regulation or other instrument under an Act, subject to conditions specified in the regulation, as those requirements would apply in a special economic zone.”

The Doug Ford PC government is set to return this month to a storm of criticism over the draft regulations for the use of special economic zones (SEZs) under its controversial Bill 5.

On October 2, the province released a draft of the legal language to implement the SEZs, inviting public comment until November 16.

The proposal opens with a disclaimer that it intends to “facilitate dialogue concerning its contents”, and it certainly has.

Environmental advocates and legal experts are warning the vague and discretionary language, riddled with loopholes using “if” repeatedly, opens the door to unchecked political power, with few, if any, enforceable environmental and Indigenous safeguards.

“Ontario’s Premier and Cabinet are proposing to keep their sweeping and unprecedented powers under the new Special Economic Zones Act dangerously unchecked,” Environmental Defence’s Ontario environment program manager Phil Pothen warned.

“These proposed regulations would do little to mitigate the environmental dangers, the threats to public safety, and the corruption risk created by the fact that Bill 5 replaces fixed rules with executive favours.”

Critics have pointed out Bill 5 strips key environmental protections, sidesteps Indigenous consultation and grants the provincial cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track development in specially designated zones without adhering to municipal or provincial laws.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer) 

The proposed regulations would give Cabinet sweeping authority to designate “special economic zones,” approve “trusted proponents,” and fast-track projects it deems “economically significant or strategically important to the Ontario economy,” since it all depends on the “opinion” of the minister and Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Key decisions, including zone size, project benefits and proponent qualifications, hinge on whether cabinet believes criteria like legal compliance, Indigenous engagement, or economic impact are met. Even environmental and community impacts are subject to ministerial discretion.

Under the draft regulations for Ontario’s Special Economic Zones Act, a “trusted proponent” can be a government body, municipality, or private entity and the designation largely depends on the Minister’s opinion. The Minister must believe the proponent and their contractors have a good legal compliance record in areas like environmental protection and health and safety. Critics warn this subjective approach lacks transparency and could favour politically connected companies.

(Government of Ontario)

“Almost all of the parameters that it purports to put around this exercise of discretion are in the minister's opinion or in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,” Ecojustice staff lawyer Lindsay Beck told The Pointer.

“That’s not really putting meaningful constraints around the exercise of discretion granted under the Act.”

In the draft policy intent for SEZ criteria, the government explicitly states: “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.”

The actual law and the draft regulations do not reflect this limitation. Critics are disappointed to see there is no language in either the Act or the draft regulations that suggests the zones should be used only in restricted situations.

The Progressive Conservative government has touted SEZs as a silver bullet to Ontario's economic challenges. A deep dive by The Pointer reveals that the reality is far from the glowing promises made by proponents.

“In the face of global economic uncertainty, our government has a mandate from the people to build the most competitive economy in the G7,” Vic Fedeli, minister of economic development, job creation and trade, said in a statement. 

“Special Economic Zones are a critical tool to expedite approvals and move projects of strategic importance forward faster, boosting our economic resilience and delivering lasting prosperity for Ontario workers and businesses.”

A 2017 World Bank study cast doubt on the effectiveness of SEZs. It examined 600 zones worldwide, analyzing detailed data on 344 across Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America, and South Asia, and found that “on average, SEZs are not catalysts for national growth. In fact, the average zone underperformed compared to the rest of its national economy,” Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, Princesa de Asturias Chair and Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics, and lead author of the report, told The Pointer.

“Even successful SEZs often struggle to sustain their impact long term. They usually show short-term gains that fade.”

Pothen says despite the “national sovereignty rhetoric” used to justify the Special Economic Zones Act, the regulation fails to prevent the granting of "trusted proponent" status to companies that are controlled by foreign governments or politicians.

Ontario Nature’s conservation campaigns and advocacy manager, Shane Moffatt, who has previously called Bill 5 “the worst piece of legislation,” warns that basing project and proponent decisions solely on the minister’s opinion “really undermines the objectivity of the criteria in the first place, fundamentally because objective criteria are only as good as the objectivity and independence of the decision maker.” 

“I suspect it's going to be extremely easy for any company or developer to suggest that they have a reputable environmental track record, and in the opinion of the minister, that'll be good enough,” Moffatt added.

Schedule 9 of Bill 5 also permits the Cabinet to exempt these proponents or projects from virtually any provincial legal requirement including municipal bylaws, and to alter how such laws apply within the zones, raising alarm over its potential to limit public recourse and accountability.

“Citizens, municipalities, workers and businesses would still be reduced to being supplicants who stand to gain from currying the Premier’s favour, and stand to lose out badly if they publicly challenge the current government or criticize its actions,” Pothen highlighted.

Beck critiques SEZA as being “premised on the false idea that environmental laws and regulations impede economic growth.”

“The proposed regulation makes clear the Ford government’s plan is to let its Ministers decide which companies it will favour for exemptions from laws designed to protect Ontario’s environment and keep its residents safe and healthy. This might be good for a few, hand-picked “trusted proponents”, but it is bad for Ontarians,” she added, noting the draft regulations were intended to add parameters to the sweeping discretion granted in Bill 5, but fail to do so.

Critics point out there is no explicit ban on exemptions that could result in significant and irreversible damage to the environment or human health.

“This draft criteria regulation does nothing to put parameters around that exercise of discretion and nothing to ensure that environmental laws are complied with,” Beck said.

Under the regulations for designated projects, the government requires the “Minister [to be] of the opinion that the project will likely succeed after considering the following” factors, including “whether work has been done to identify potential impacts on health and the environment, and whether risk mitigation strategies have been identified to deal with such impacts.”

But the regulation merely calls for these impacts and strategies to be identified, with no reference to whether they align with established environmental laws or regulations. 

“There's no reference to the efficacy of any risk mitigation strategies that have been identified, only simply identifying them. And simply identifying them as one of several considerations for the minister suffices," Beck noted.

This approach, she argues, falls short of addressing the real need for stringent environmental protections.

Under Bill 5, the Endangered Species Act, once regarded as the gold standard for species protection in Canada, has been dismantled and replaced by the weakened Species Conservation Act, which removes critical protections for at-risk wildlife, eliminating the focus on species recovery and stripping enforcement officers of the power to stop projects that harm habitats. 

When species are removed from the protection list, the legal safety afforded to them previously under the Endangered Species Act have also been rescinded, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and harm.

(Bill 5)

One of the most significant changes is the new, substantially narrowed definition of "habitat" for different species: For animal species, habitat includes only the dwelling place, such as a den or nest, occupied for purposes like breeding or hibernating, and the area immediately surrounding it that is essential for those activities; for vascular plant species, habitat is defined as the critical root zone surrounding a plant; and for all other species, habitat refers to any area essential for the species to carry out its life processes.

“Imagine an animal with a den that wanders around, gathering food from the surrounding habitat, drinking from a creek, and finding a mate within its territory. To protect the species and maintain its status quo, the full range of areas it relies on throughout its life cycle must be preserved. This includes places it migrates to or uses seasonally,” lawyer Laura Bowman explained, calling Bill 5 a “biology-denying bill”. 

“Under the new definition, habitat protection would be limited to just the den and the immediate area around it. The animal would no longer have access to the broader habitat necessary for finding food, mates, or moving freely. Essentially, a shopping mall could be built around the den, as the surrounding area would no longer be protected.”

Bill 5 also makes species listings discretionary, replacing the previous science-based, independent assessment model with politically driven decision-making. 

Many see this shift as a major setback for long-term conservation efforts. Under the ESA, species were designated by an independent scientific panel. Bill 5, however, places this decision-making power in the hands of politicians with no expertise in ecology or wildlife management. 

The elimination of recovery strategies for endangered species further worsens the situation, as advocates argue that without these essential roadmaps for survival and recovery, there will be no effective way to track or prevent the continued decline of Ontario’s most vulnerable wildlife.

Environmental experts and advocates have warned that gutting the ESA would lead to an environmental "slaughterfest," a warning Beck says is exacerbated by the new permitting process, which is as easy as “a click of a button.”

A 2021 report by the province’s Auditor General revealed that the number of permits issued to harm at-risk species’ habitats had skyrocketed by over 6,000 percent since 2008, with many of these permits granted automatically. The report found that “the Ministry of the Environment was facilitating and enabling the harm of at-risk species, the opposite of its mandate.”

The PCs attempted to misrepresent the audit’s findings when questioned by experts and members of the public, and have consistently refused to study the cumulative impacts of their development-first agenda, despite clear evidence of the harm it is doing to at-risk wildlife. 

“There's very little in the way of risk mitigation for endangered species within this new Species Conservation Act,” Beck said.

“Taken together, the Special Economic Zones Act and the repeal of the Endangered Species Act and its replacement with a weaker piece of legislation. Both signal a very worrying period for the environment in Ontario, and both are premised on what we say is a really false dichotomy between environmental protection and economic growth that Ontario seems to be embracing under the Ford government.”

A 2021 International Union for Conservation of Nature report highlighted climate change as a major driver of species destruction, with millions of species facing extinction due to extreme weather, habitat loss, ocean warming, and ecosystem disruption.

But Ontario is failing to act meaningfully on climate change as well.

On September 25, the Auditor General revealed that Ontario is on track to miss its 2030 emissions reduction target by a much wider margin than anticipated.

Environment minister Todd McCarthy downplayed the urgency, saying, “targets are not outcomes. We believe in achievable outcomes, not unrealistic objectives."

“Despite legislated requirements to prepare a climate change plan and publicly report on progress, no finalized plan exists, and MECP [Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks] has not released a new progress report since 2021,” the report also highlighted. 

Moffatt argues that the heart of the problem with Bill 5 and the Special Economic Zones Act lies in the focus on the "economic" gains, all while turning a blind eye to the devastating environmental costs.

He notes another glaring omission is the lack of any explicit requirement for free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities, a principle recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), to which Canada is a signatory since 2016.

It’s clear that Indigenous communities provided detailed feedback on the draft regulation calling for transparency through a public registry of proposed and designated projects, the creation of an appeal process, stronger supports for Indigenous business participation, and restrictions on zone designations in areas of environmental or cultural significance or under active land claims, according to the Indigenous Communities Consultation Feedback report on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting.

Ontario reaffirmed its “commitment to meeting the Duty to Consult,” but offered no concrete mechanism to uphold Indigenous rights or consultation requirements as part of the draft regulations, and said it is “considering other mechanisms” to make information public, that potential appeals “would be considered” later, and that existing programs already support Indigenous businesses. 
 

Though the draft regulation includes some vague mentions of Indigenous engagement plans, it leaves the decision to the minister’s opinion.

(Government of Ontario)

“That’s deeply alarming. That’s going backwards in Canada. It’s significantly out of sync with the expectations of all Canadians,” Moffatt said.

Is there a way the draft regulations can be strengthened?

“There's really nothing a criteria regulation could do to make this Special Economic Zones Act sufficiently protective of the environment,” Beck emphasized.

Ideally, the prescribed criteria would reference environmental and health impacts and require compliance with environmental laws, but the vast power given to the cabinet to exempt entire zones or companies from these protections undermines any real assurance that the Act will adequately safeguard the environment, she explained.

On September 19, environmental organizations staged a protest outside Queen’s Park to highlight the dangers of Bill 5. They created a dramatic display featuring fake toxic spills, papier-mâché endangered species, and caution tape to symbolize how the Bill allows the government to bypass environmental laws and Indigenous consultations, threatening ecosystems and communities.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

What worries Pothen is that since the proposed criteria are just regulations, not amendments to the Act itself, they can't stop Ford and his cabinet from granting "above the law" status to any person, company, or project they “favour” or imposing Special Economic Zones without approval from elected MPPs at Queen’s Park.

“The Premier and Cabinet themselves would be free to unilaterally scrap or change any criterion standing in their way without the approval of elected MPPs,” he said. 

“If Premier Ford and his Cabinet are not yet willing to give up these unprecedented powers, they should at least be subject to objective, enforceable restrictions that offer meaningful protection to the environment and people, and which cannot be changed without the approval of elected MPPs.”

“If the pursuit of economic growth is going to undermine labour rights, trample environmental safeguards and sideline indigenous communities, we are setting ourselves up for long-term problems in Ontario. That's not prosperity, that's a regulatory race to the bottom,” Moffatt said. 

“Responsible development requires clear standards, meaningful input, and genuine partnership that respects both the people and ecosystems of Ontario. Ontario Nature continues to urge the Government of Ontario to revisit Bill 5, repeal it, and work collaboratively with Ontarians to create legislation that fosters prosperity for all, not just developers.”

Ontario Nature is currently preparing a response that the organization will be submitting to the province soon.

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you