I am concerned by this…

I am concerned by this proposal, just as I have always been concerned about Bill 5.

This proposal will allow Ontario to continue its sweeping and unprecedented powers in putting projects through. That is not right, does not demonstrate responsibility or accountability, and is overall bad government behaviour. This is the government putting profit over its citizens and the planet that we all depend on.

The content of the draft criteria regulations is too vague, too subjective, and contains too many loopholes to meaningfully constrain the Premier's power to impose Special Economic Zones. It can allow the Premier to hand his developer friends and companies controlled by foreign government or politicians "Designated Project" or "Trusted Proponent" status. That's not fair or right. For example, there is no explicit prohibition on exemptions that would seriously and irreversibly harm the environment or human health.

Proper procedures need to be followed to ensure that projects are in the best interest for Ontario. This proposal eliminates procedures.

The proposed criteria are mere regulations. If they were amendments to the Act itself, they could prevent the Premier and Cabinet from extending statuses above the law to any person, company, or project they favour. If they were amendments, they would also prevent the imposition of a Special Economic Zone on any neighbourhood or region they choose. This proposal allows the Premier and Cabinet free to single-handedly scrap or change any criteria standing in their way without the approval of elected MPPs. This would also harm Indigenous rights and strips public engagement/consultation. Projects that reduce transparency and public voices will increase resistance against them. Come on Ontario, just act in a respectful and honest way. Collaboration and proper processes that protect human health and the environment are the best ways for success. Current and future generations deserve a future. This proposal will not lead to a good future.

The proposed regulations will barely mitigate environmental dangers, threats to public safety, and the risk of corruption created by Bill 5. Bill 5 replaced proper processes with executive favours.

This proposal does not respect citizens, Indigenous Peoples, workers, businesses, and experts who will suffer the consequences of the Ontario government's actions. Ontario should not be removing the right of people to speak out against projects or provide crucial information that could help projects. We have the right to a healthy environment and a right to speech.

This proposal will not allow for enforceable restrictions that offer meaningful protection to the environment and people.

Final Special Economic Zone designations should not solely be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That bypasses local democracy.

I do not support "In the opinion of the Minister" wording because it represents unchecked power. It allows the Minister to abuse their power by approving projects without transparency. It allows them to put forward a project that is not in Ontario's best interest. It can lead to a corrupt government.

This proposal would allow Special Economic Zones to be exempt from or modify provincial laws (e.g., environmental and planning acts). This will mean weaker rules for select developers. Developers should be held responsible for properly carrying out a project. E.g., cleaning up after themselves if they cause pollution otherwise that just harms human and nature's health.

The proposal says it promises "control", but I do not believe its wording. It gives no criteria for protecting ecosystems, public health, or species at risk. I suggest improving its wording and adding protections for ecosystems, public health, and species at risk. We need nature. It is more fiscally costly to negatively impact nature. E.g., increasing climate change increases plastic and wildfire smokes, increasing the drain on our already burdened health care system, increasing deaths, etc.

The province claims that Indigenous consultation is "ongoing" but they have removed legal requirement for consent and accommodation. This goes against the duty to consult, Indigenous rights in the Constitution, and the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is purely disrespectful and is an example of colonialism.

The window for consultation is too short. How can you guarantee that public feedback will be published or even acted upon? I have seen too many notices of decisions published saying 0 changes were made despite thousands of comments of concern from the public. How do I know this won't be another example of un-meaningful consultation? It decreases the little trust I have with the Ontario government.

This proposal allows certain developers to get insider privileges, such as favouring large corporations over local or Indigenous-led projects. The term "trusted proponents" is too vague and allows for special treatment.

The proposal makes it unclear what local bylaws and zoning will apply within Special Economic Zones. It sounds like the province is overstepping onto municipal etc jurisdiction. This proposal strips power from municipalities etc to object or be involved. That is not in the spirit of collaboration, may end up costing municipalities, and go against their municipal goals (e.g., reaching net-zero).

This proposal should include an appeal process or true independent review. Citizens, municipalities etc deserve a formal way to challenge harmful Special Economic Zone designations or exemptions. They may also have important information to share about the areas.

This proposal puts short-term profit and long-term harm over collaboration, transparency, accountability, transparency, human rights, human health, and nature's protection.

I request you address all these issues. E.g., no overriding of environmental, Indigenous, or municipal laws; all exemptions should require public notice and independent review over a proper length of time; Indigenous consent should be required before any Special Economic Zone approval; all proposals should be published for consultation and consultation should be meaningful; no deregulation of zones; increase the amount of green zones.