Submissions Regarding…

Submissions Regarding Schedule 9 of Bill 5

I’m deeply concerned about the critical issues surrounding Schedule 9 of Bill 5, which proposes the enactment of a Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. This legislation raises profound legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns that warrant immediate attention and necessitate the withdrawal of Schedule 9 in its entirety.

1. Undermining the Rule of Law

At the core of our legal system is the principle of the rule of law, which mandates that no individual or government entity is above the law. Schedule 9, however, seeks to grant the provincial government unfettered discretion to create "special economic zones" where existing provincial laws and municipal by-laws may be suspended. This is a direct affront to the rule of law, as it allows for the establishment of zones where legal protections are effectively nullified. The vague language of the proposed legislation does not delineate any boundaries or criteria for the exercise of this discretion, which could lead to arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

2. Potential for Environmental Harm

The implications of Schedule 9 extend beyond legal concerns; they pose a significant risk to our environment and public health. By enabling "trusted proponents" to bypass existing legal requirements, the legislation creates a pathway for potentially harmful projects to proceed without adequate oversight or accountability. The establishment of "law-free" zones could result in the exploitation of natural resources and degradation of environmental features, all in the name of private profit. This is particularly alarming in the context of resource extraction and infrastructure development in sensitive areas, such as the Ring of Fire.

3. Indigenous Rights and Consultation

Schedule 9 conspicuously omits any reference to Indigenous legal rights, which is a grave oversight. The potential adverse impacts on Indigenous communities, particularly in relation to land use and resource extraction, cannot be overstated. The legislation must be amended to explicitly incorporate the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the crucial principle of free, prior, and informed consent. Furthermore, the government must respect section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognises and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

4. Municipal Government

Broad statutory authority enables a municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance its ability to respond to municipal issues. Schedule 9 seeks to provide the province with untrammelled discretion to exempt or modify municipal by-laws and municipal instruments from any trusted proponents or designated projects within special economic zones, raising additional concerns about whether the health and safety of persons and the environment will be protected.

5. Accountability and Civil Liability

The proposed limitations on civil liability for the Crown, particularly in instances of "bad faith," represent a troubling departure from accountability. By shielding government decisions from civil liability, Schedule 9 undermines the public's right to seek redress for grievances and erodes trust in governmental processes. The absence of accountability mechanisms raises serious concerns about the integrity of decision-making processes that could significantly affect the health and safety of individuals and the environment. Ontarians must not tolerate attempts to prohibit virtually all types of civil claims against the Crown for acts or omissions that directly harm members of our community, including instances of bad faith. This attempt to limit liability is unnecessary and unduly impairs access to justice in Ontario.

Conclusion

In light of these compelling arguments, I respectfully submit that Schedule 9 of Bill 5 must be withdrawn in its entirety. The potential for harm to the environment, the violation of Indigenous rights, the undermining of the rule of law, and the lack of accountability mechanisms collectively present a strong case against the proposed legislation. If the government insists on proceeding with this legislation, it must be amended to ensure that the principles of UNDRIP are enshrined and that the rights of Indigenous peoples are fully respected.