Prepared Remarks for PHCHCC Delegation to Port Hope Council Meeting, September 15, 2026

Good evening Madam Mayor, Councillors, Staff, Colleagues and Public 

I am Faye More, Chair and presenting on behalf of the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee, a volunteer group of current and former residents that began in 1995. 

When I spoke at this spot during Question Period on Sept 1st on the serious matter of Ontario’s Bill 5, its provisions for provincial takeovers of land via designations of Special Economic Zones and Council’s official position on Bill 5, my comments (and those of several others) were garbled in real time as we spoke and later on the tape posted to you tube - Hopefully the problem has been sorted. 

In June 2025 the Ontario Government passed Bill 5 - 

Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 

And in 2025 the Federal Government passed 

Bill C-5 — One Canadian Economy Act, 2025 

In the words of the First Nations Chiefs of Ontario “ Although introduced at different levels of government, both laws fast-track infrastructure and resource development projects while weakening environmental protections, consultation processes, and recognition of First Nations rights. Each represents a significant shift in how governments approach development, often at the expense of Treaty rights, nation-to-nation relationships, and community voices” 

“Federal Bill C-5 allows cabinet to quickly grant federal approvals for big projects 

deemed to be in the national interest… by sidestepping existing laws, while Ontario's bill allows its cabinet to suspend provincial and municipal laws through the creation of so-called "special economic zones." 

In July 2025 on CBC - “9 Ontario First Nations ask for injunction against Bill 5, say law represents 'clear and present danger' First Nations say law violates Charter right to life, liberty, security of the person 

The First Nations argue the laws are unconstitutional because they violate charter right to life, liberty and security of the person, as well as equality rights. 

The centralizing of provincial power in Ontario's Bill 5 also poses a very real threat to democratic decision-making in lower-tier communities like Port Hope which has resources and rural land the province wants to use to build the largest nuclear reactor complex in the world. The extent of this threat has become clear to the public in the past few weeks because of the efforts of several Councillors for transparency. 

Going back in time - First we express our appreciation for the important Motion opposing Bill 5 and Special Economic Zones brought forward to Committee of the Whole and Council in June 2025 by Port Hope Councillors Vicki Mink, Claire Holloway Wadhwani, Darrell Toms and carried which notes the serious concerns of the Canadian Environmental Law Assoc, Canadian Civil Liberties and Amnesty International for promoting the abandonment of the rule of law. 

Their Motion states in part: Therefore be it resolved 

“ that Council for the Municipality of Port Hope Opposes all provisions in Bill 5 that reduce environmental protections and Ontario’s proud legacy of protections of Endangered Species, that over-ride the rule of law and that nullify municipal planning authority”. 

Their Motion was carried so official Municipal policy does not support Bill 5 and imposition of Special Economic Zones or SEZs on communities taking away their local autonomy. 

Moving forward to important recent events this year regarding Bill 5, Port Hope policy and the reasons for Motion 12.12 from Councillors Attridge and Holloway Wadhwani on the agenda this evening. We thank these Councillors for their integrity and persistent efforts to make public at the August 11th Council meeting and again on Sept 1st the fact the Port Hope delegation to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference held in Ottawa August 16-19 2026, presumably lead by the Mayor and CAO as was last year, had sent written material contrary to the Municipal policy above to Ontario Ministers and AMO. 

I am quoting just several excerpts from what we understand are the Municipality of Port Hope’s 2026 Delegation Requests: 

To the Ministry of Economic Development: 

“ Port Hope respectfully requests that the Province: 

1. Designate the Port Hope-Wesleyville corridor as a provincial priority employment lands and investment area; 

2. Consider Port Hope as a pilot Special Economic Zone community for small and medium-sized municipalities as appropriate 

3. Fund and coordinate employment land servicing and support land assembly, due diligence and site readiness 

4. Develop a Wesleyville co-location and nuclear supply chain investment strategy and establish a one-window provincial-municipal delivery table.” 

And this to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: 

“ Port Hope seeks planning authority independent of Northumberland County to respond faster to major growth tied to OPG’s nuclear project. Port Hope is best positioned to make decisions about its own future. We appreciate the Premier’s support & continued MMAH discussions on greater planning autonomy”... 

“We appreciate the Premier’s support for this direction during our meeting at Queen’s Park and we are equally appreciative of the several constructive meetings held with senior Ministry staff to explore options for greater planning autonomy:.Those discussions have been valuable and we believe the time is right to advance a more formal conversation about the tools, authorities and legislative or regulatory changes that may be required.” 

This appears to be a reference to the meeting in March 2026 of the Mayor and CAO with the Premier and Ministers at Queen’s Park including a one to one meeting with the Premier on new nuclear in Port Hope (which the Mayor mentioned in her weekly newsletter dated Thursday, April 2 2026) where a growth readiness brief was provided. In the Mayor’s words, “highlighting the careful, community-focused approach we are taking as we plan for the future.” Is this AMO submission part of the economic brief last March? Is the brief a public document? Was Council informed? Did Council approve it? This meeting happened 6 months ago. 

The efforts of Councillors Attridge and Holloway Wadhwani to make this information public for transparency at the August 11th meeting, before the AMO Conference in August made it clear to us in the audience that this material had only recently been seen by Councillors, was not approved prior to distribution to Ministers’ offices requesting meetings. Their Motion on the agenda this evening will hopefully prevent officials going forward with their own agendas that are not consistent with a democratic vote of Council and without the knowledge of the community of messaging that could initiate sudden massive changes. 

Moved by Councillor Attridge Seconded by Councillor Holloway Wadhwani: 

Now therefore be it resolved that Council direct the CAO to develop, for Council’s consideration no later than Q2 2027, a policy and any necessary amendments to the Delegation of Authority By-law, providing that advance Council approval be obtained before: making a formal delegation on behalf of the Municipality to another level of government, an agency or Crown corporation of another level of government, or an external organization. “ 

Their Motion is necessary to try to ensure consistent messaging from Port Hope Officials. For now, it is urgent that the damage done and yes, it is damage, be corrected as we must assume that the documents with requests were discussed with Ministers at AMO or elsewhere in some way or are still on the desks of Ministers, their staff and the Premier waiting to act in their own favour with the urgency described throughout this document. 

All this happening behind the scenes a few weeks before Lame Duck period started and two months before a municipal election, while the people in Port Hope, Northumberland County and surrounding areas who will be impacted most directly are being reassured that the Municipality has made no decisions on the OPG Plans for Wesleyville, that the people are being listened to, that the federal assessment process is being respected not short-circuited, that Council with the community will decide its future, that Port Hope does not agree with Provincial SEZs being imposed etc. 

It is well known that an overwhelming majority of public comments to the IAAC Registry in 2026 are against the OPG’s nuclear plans for Wesleyville so asking the Province to designate it a provincial SEZ with more supporting industries making Port Hope 2.0 a full on industrialized nuclear community, is also acting against the available evidence on public opinion. 

Whether in favour of the project or against it as we are, acting in this manner is a betrayal 

of the community. 

We are worried about the implications of what has been said and done- we request that in addition to passing the Councillors’ Motion 12.12 for the future, Council 

1. Act quickly to have this entire package of Delegation material to Ministers and AMO officially rescinded by notifying Ministers and the Premier that the content does not have official Council approval. 

2. That the Port Hope officials who authorized and approved these policy directions and the content of this briefing material identify themselves and be publicly accountable - we need to know how the material has been used to date, outcomes and replies from these meetings with Provincial Ministers and staff, followup that may be pending by the Province. 

Again we thank the Councillors who stood against Bill 5 and for public transparency 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Faye More 

Chair, PHCHCC