Strong Objection to the…

Strong Objection to the Proposed Special Economic Zones Act, 2025
– A Dangerous Precedent for Deregulation and Environmental Bypass

The Special Economic Zones Act, 2025, as outlined, represents a profound and dangerous shift away from transparency, environmental accountability, and the rule of law in Ontario. This legislation does not "protect" Ontario’s economy—it exposes it to long-term environmental, social, and economic harm by codifying corporate carve-outs and regulatory exemptions under the guise of "strategic importance."
This proposal would grant sweeping, unchecked powers to Cabinet and the Minister to:
• Designate entire zones without public consultation;
• Exempt “vetted” projects and “trusted” proponents from critical environmental, planning, and permitting requirements;
• Redefine what standards apply to which actors with no clear or independent oversight.

Such open-ended regulatory powers mirror the overreach previously attempted under Bill 23 and Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs)—moves that have been broadly criticized by legal experts, environmental watchdogs, municipalities, and Indigenous communities alike. The Ford government has already been rebuked by the Auditor General and Integrity Commissioner for its abuse of fast-track processes that favored select private interests over the public good. This Act seeks to formalize that abuse under the banner of economic "resilience."

Let’s be clear: there is no evidence that regulatory "streamlining" or permit exemptions protect long-term prosperity.

On the contrary:
• The Greenbelt land swap scandal—now under criminal investigation by the RCMP—revealed how removing environmental safeguards leads to political corruption and policy capture.
• The 2019 Auditor General’s Environment Report warned that Ontario’s deregulation efforts were already weakening protections for endangered species and natural habitats.
• The Environmental Bill of Rights mandates that Ontarians have the right to participate in decisions that affect their environment. This Act would enable the government to bypass those rights through regulation.

“Trusted proponents” ARE NOT A LEGAL CATEGORY
—this is corporate code for who the government decides is politically or economically expedient. Creating an entirely new legislative mechanism for exempting select businesses from the rules others must follow will lead to:
• Increased legal uncertainty for municipalities;
• Potential violations of Section 35 Aboriginal rights where land use changes proceed without free, prior, and informed consent;
• Irreversible degradation of farmland, wetlands, watersheds, and species habitats.

Moreover, the proposal mentions “high standards for operation, safety, and the environment” without defining those standards or who determines them. There is no mention of:
• Public notice requirements;
• Environmental impact assessments;
• Independent third-party reviews;
• Appeal rights or recourse for affected communities.

We are being asked to trust that this government will act in good faith, when repeated patterns of behavior suggest otherwise. Regulatory shortcuts do not protect economic security—they undermine it by sacrificing the very ecological systems and democratic institutions that support long-term stability