The Ford government’s Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, has been a source of controversy since its introduction last June. Rolled out amid economic uncertainty, partially due to U.S. tariffs, the bill aims to accelerate development and major infrastructure projects, such as mining and electric vehicle projects.
One of the most controversial portions of the bill is section 9, the Special Economic Zones Act (SEZA), which allows the cabinet and the environment minister to bypass any law within an area they deem a designated special economic zone.
Citing the bill as a threat to democracy and environmental protections, a coalition of four public-interest and environmental organizations announced earlier this month that they would launch a collective legal challenge to the bill. Ecojustice is representing the groups, which include Democracy Watch, Environmental Defence Canada, Wildlands League, and Friends of the Earth Canada.
“The way that it’s constructed, it would allow cabinet to name an individual or a corporation within a particular area, to ignore any laws that cabinet names so that could be labour laws, minimum wage laws, health and safety laws, clean air and clean water laws, minimum wage requirements could be anything and or everything, and there are no constraints on this decision making authority,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defense.
“The Constitution is pretty clear that only the legislature can make laws, and that cabinet only has the right to pass regulations under those laws. A law that purports to say that cabinet can override any and all laws is contrary to the Canadian Constitution, so that’s the rationale for why we’re challenging it.”
The Ontario cabinet deems an area a special economic zone if they believe an area is “economically significant” and “no larger than necessary.” This effectively removes objective standards important to regulation, meaning the government does not have to be held accountable to the law. Critics, including NDP deputy leader Sol Mamakwa, have described SEZA as creating a potential “wild, wild west” for mining operations in Northern Ontario.
“A country without laws is no longer a democracy, and with Premier Ford’s government passing this law, they’re seeking to end the power of the legislature to write and enforce the laws that define our democracy, and if it’s allowed to stand, then it returns us to a time when the powerful just ruled by decree,” Gray emphasized.
The four groups presenting the legal challenge are not the only opponents of the bill. Over the past year, several local activists and organizations have protested Bill 5, calling it undemocratic. Among them was local advocate and executive director of ReForest Woolwich, Kevin Thomason.
“There are just so many aspects of this bill that are clearly not in the best public interest or go against the greater public good. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s these absurd, lawless special economic zones, whether it’s the removal of the Endangered Species Act, the trampling of Indigenous rights. There are just so many things wrong with Bill 5, and it’s been so troubling to see the province bulldozing ahead with it, and it’s great now, despite Ford ramming it through the legislature, to see these community groups stepping up and launching a legal challenge,” said Thomason.
In response to the criticism, the government has argued that the bill is a necessary step for accelerating economic development.
“There will always be people who want to maintain the status quo and hold Ontario back, but with our economy under direct attack, we need to change how we do things,” said Jennifer Cunliffe, spokesperson for Economic Development Minister Fedeli.
“That is why we are delivering on our mandate to protect Ontario’s economy by taking bold and creative action to cut red tape, speed up duplicative approvals, and move projects of strategic importance forward faster, while maintaining the province’s stringent safeguards for environmental protection. The criteria for SEZs have been shaped by rigorous consultations with Indigenous communities and stakeholders across the province, ensuring we move forward in building the strongest and most competitive economy in the G7.”
While the government claimed to consult with indigenous groups on Bill 5, First Nations groups reported having little to no meaningful prior consultation, leading to significant opposition, protests, and legal challenges. Currently, 14 First Nations are involved in a separate major constitutional challenge against Ontario’s Bill 5.
David Douglas, founding board member of Guelph Climate Action Network (GCAN), was one of the organizers of a protest agaisnt Bill 5 last year. He argues that while the bill was passed in the name of cutting red tape, Ontario’s laws are not the unnecessary red tape they are being portrayed as.
“The thing about this is that there’s no evidence on the table for any of us indicating that people’s health protection and protection of the environment and respect for First Nations peoples has been anything of a hindrance to development at all,” said Douglas
“We all want evidence-based policy making, and there’s no evidence on the table to say that the environmental legislation and regulations in Ontario have been hindering or acting as roadblocks to residential and industrial, mining and other developments.
He described the bill as one piece in a set of initiatives by the provincial government to dismantle environmental protectionsto accelerate development, citing the removal of the Endangered Species Act under Bill 5 on March 30 as another example.
“Developers haven’t liked rules. They haven’t liked the regulations. They haven’t liked green development standards. They haven’t liked the Endangered Species Act. They haven’t liked doing environmental assessments or anything like that. They haven’t liked our conservation authority. Everything possible that can be dismantled and taken apart is,” said Thomason.
“And yet, all of these things are here for reasons. They’re all here for the greater public good, proper planning, and proper process. Instead, they’re all made out to be red tape that needs to be eliminated. Not too many people would say the Endangered Species Act was red tape that needed to be eliminated, and it’s not stopping any houses from being built. It’s absolutely asinine.”
When Bill 5 was first proposed last year, GCAN hosted a protest and march to Guelph city hall. Hundreds of community members showed up in support, including Wellington Water Watchers, Seniors for Climate Action Now, and local Indigenous groups.
“When we met and made our voices heard around city hall, just as a community space, not directing it solely towards the municipality, but asking the municipality to stand up, for a change, to stand up and tell the province that this type of legislation was wholly unacceptable,” explained Douglas.
He added that the core root of the issue is the provincial government’s ideology of seeing the environment as a marketable product, like Coca-Cola or toothpaste.
“Some politicians are of the view that the environment is a commodity. It’s a piece of property, and it needs to be essentially disposed of so that we can get on with making profit and expedite so-called development,” said Douglas.
“That worldview is extremely problematic for the welfare of every Canadian and every Ontarian. So we have got more than enough work to do to address these issues.”
