Subject: ERO 025-0391 –…

Subject: ERO 025-0391 – Proposed Amendments to Enable Special Economic Zones (Schedule 9 of Bill 5)

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 025-0391 – Proposed Amendments to Enable Special Economic Zones (Schedule 9 of Bill 5) and offer the following comments for consideration.

The proposed introduction of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) through Schedule 9 of Bill 5 represents a significant shift in land-use governance, planning consistency, and environmental accountability in Ontario -- one that is fundamentally misaligned with the priorities of anglers, hunters, and trappers in this province.

Discretion

The proposed Act would provide a mechanism for bypassing key legislative safeguards in Ontario and, critically, would do so without any clear criteria or statutory boundaries. In effect, it would create unrestricted discretionary power on the part of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, setting an alarming precedent that is fundamentally at odds with Canada's Rule of Law (which stipulates that laws must not be arbitrary, must not be of unlimited scope, and must not grant unfettered discretion).

We are deeply concerned that such a framework would result in unrestricted and untracked ecological degradation across parts of Ontario.

The Act could easily be used to:
• Exempt “preferred” proponents and projects from zoning requirements, allowing virtually any land to be designated for industrial development;

• Override critical legislation such as the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Endangered Species Act;
• Disregard municipal farmland protections, watershed planning, and override official plans and zoning bylaws.

These powers would carry no requirement for environmental screening, cumulative impact assessment, or even inter-ministerial coordination. The legislation includes no thresholds or criteria for what may be permitted within a SEZ, opening the door to politically motivated decision-making. A substantial body of peer-reviewed research exist indicating that conservation decisions driven by political interest rather than evidence result in significantly reduced effectiveness and poorer environmental outcomes (Beazley & Olive, 2021; Botchwey & Cunningham, 2021; Carroll et al. 2017; Rose et al. 2018).

Accountability

Because SEZs would be established by regulation rather than statute, there may be no requirements for posting on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) for future SEZ designations or exemptions. This would severely limit public scrutiny and eliminate meaningful opportunities to comment on land-use changes with potentially far-reaching environmental consequences.

Further, the Act would shield government decisions from civil liability, even in cases where government actions are taken in bad faith. This unprecedented level of power without accountability would fundamentally alter the nature of land-use decision-making in Ontario.

Indigenous Rights

As an organization committed to sustainable wildlife conservation and the long-standing traditions of hunting, fishing, and trapping, OFAH Foundation recognizes that many Indigenous communities are leaders in land stewardship and share common interests in protecting habitat, access to the land, and ecological integrity.

We are deeply concerned that the proposed Act omits consideration for the rights of Indigenous peoples in Ontario, including obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Ignoring Indigenous rights not only undermines legal obligations and reconciliation (potentially resulting in slower development due to the inevitable legal proceedings), it also threatens the legitimacy of decisions that affect shared natural resources. The erosion of Indigenous consultation standards in SEZs sets a dangerous precedent that weakens the voices of all land users, including conservationists, anglers, and hunters.

The well-being of Ontario’s natural landscape must be a central consideration for any policy or project related to development, industry, or land-use planning. With unprecedented levels of wetland, forest, grassland, and waterway degradation across the province, environmental integrity must be a clear priority for the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, and all other provincial agencies.

Unfortunately, the proposed Act prioritizes economic expediency over sound environmental governance, meaningful public participation, and long-term sustainability. It echoes troubling patterns found elsewhere in Bill 5, where ministerial discretion is maximized while environmental safeguards and public accountability are diminished or eliminated.

Ontario does not need to sacrifice environmental protections to achieve economic development. Sustainable growth is within our capabilities and is best supported through transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based decision-making, not through unchecked discretionary authority. We strongly urge the government to withdraw Schedule 9 in its entirety and instead work collaboratively with municipalities, Indigenous communities, stakeholders, and the public to optimize economic strategies grounded in the principles of sustainable development.

OFAH Foundation is grateful for the opportunity to comment and looks forward to working constructively with the province on this and future conservation matters.

References
Beazley, K. F. and Olive, A. (2021). Transforming conservation in Canada: shifting policies and paradigms. Facets, 6: 1714-1727. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0144
Botchwey, B. S. & Cunningham, C. (2021). The politicization of protected areas establishment in Canada. Facets, 6: 1146-1167. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0069
Carroll, C., Hartl, B., Goldman, G.T., Rohlf, D.J., et al. (2017). Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes. Conserv Biol, 31(5): 967-975. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12958.
Rose D.C., Sutherland, W. J., Amano, T., González-Varo, J.P., et al. (2018). The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conserv Lett,11(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12564