Proposed Amendments to the…

Proposed Amendments to the Mining Act, Electricity Act, and Ontario Energy Board Act.
— NO safeguards, NO transparency, NO oversight, JUST private PROFITS... Subordinating public interest to private extractive gain one sector at a time.

This proposal represents a sweeping and authoritarian consolidation of executive power under the guise of “efficiency,” “security,” and “streamlining.” Ontario must categorically oppose the proposed amendments, which serve to undermine environmental oversight, violate Indigenous rights, centralize permitting power without accountability, and enable economically reckless, ideologically driven interference in Ontario’s energy and mining sectors.

1. “One Project, One Process”: A Fast Track for Deregulation, Not Efficiency

Let’s be absolutely clear: the so-called “1P1P” model is not a solution to bureaucratic inefficiencies — it is an institutional maneuver to strip environmental and Indigenous consultation processes of integrity, scrutiny, and teeth. Centralizing permit coordination under a Mine Authorization and Permitting Delivery Team (MAPDT) accountable only to the Ministry of Energy and Mines — a ministry with a clear proponent bias — is a textbook case of regulatory capture.

The claim that there are “no anticipated environmental impacts” is not only disingenuous, but insulting. Ontario’s history is littered with the consequences of rushed mineral approvals, from the mercury poisoning of Grassy Narrows (Reid & Jamieson, 2021) to the under-regulated tailings disasters of the mid-20th century. This government would do well to remember that streamlining approval does not “unleash prosperity” — it unleashes irreversible ecological damage.

Further, the process explicitly exempts timeframes associated with the Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous communities from service standards, which turns meaningful consultation into a checkbox exercise, undermining the Honour of the Crown. This alone renders the process constitutionally vulnerable.

2. Ministerial Overreach in Mining Claim Cancellations

Granting unilateral authority to the Minister of Mines to terminate leases, suspend licenses, and cancel mining claims under the pretense of “national mineral supply chain protection” opens the door to authoritarian interference and opaque decision-making. There are no public criteria, no judicial oversight, and no remedy for affected stakeholders. This proposal is an invitation to politicize Ontario’s land tenure system in favour of whoever is in power, while punishing dissenters or inconvenient foreign interests.

The Ministry’s vague reference to “foreign antagonists” without naming risks or providing evidence raises red flags. If this is about China, say so — and bring facts, not fearmongering. If this is about critical minerals for allied supply chains, then why are Indigenous land rights and environmental protections the first thing on the chopping block?

3. Cloaked Energy Nationalism That Fails to Address Real Risks

The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act purport to shield Ontario from foreign malware, manipulation, or tampering — yet provide zero evidence of any such threat currently materializing through energy procurement channels. What this actually does is grant the Minister open-ended authority to blacklist foreign suppliers or technologies on opaque nationalistic grounds, post-tender, post-award. This is economic protectionism masquerading as cybersecurity, and it invites retaliatory trade measures that will cost Ontarians far more than it protects.

If energy sector resilience were the true aim, this government would be investing in Crown corporations, decentralized renewables, demand-side management, and grid transparency — not legislative bluster designed to justify exclusionary procurement policies.

On regulatory failure:
A 2022 report by the Auditor General of Ontario found significant gaps in mine closure plan reviews, where “environmental risks were not being assessed adequately or at all” (AG Ontario, 2022). Now this bill proposes even fewer guardrails?

On Indigenous rights:
The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed in Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo Services (2017 SCC 40) that the duty to consult must be meaningful, not token. This proposal’s carve-outs and vague timelines threaten that very principle.

On foreign ownership paranoia:
None of these provisions address the only genuine threat associated with foreign interference: money. FDI, and Multinational and Transnational corporate investment in the absence of publicly owned infrastructure should be addressed however, this proposal will actually exacerbate foreign ownership through existing regulatory loopholes— even according to the IESO’s 2023 Annual Planning Outlook, Ontario’s energy procurement challenges are not caused by foreign interference, but rather domestic underinvestment in GOVERNMENT-OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE (transmission), and uncertainty.

This legislation is not about economic growth — it’s about consolidation of executive power, deregulation of extractive industries, and extinguishment of the Crown’s obligations to the land and the people who live on it.

I urge the Ministry to withdraw this suite of amendments, conduct a full environmental and legal risk assessment, and return to a public interest framework that centres community, ecological sustainability, and Indigenous jurisdiction — not corporate convenience.

EVIDENCE:
• A 2017 Research Report for the Government of the Northwest Territories on the Socioeconomic Benefits from Natural Resource Extraction Projects study noted that mining-related deforestation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss in Canada are significantly correlated with regulatory loopholes and political interference in project approvals. Bill 5 is an accelerant to that trend.
o “…vulnerable to political realities (O’Faircheallaigh 2015). In Canada, for example, legislation that regulates assessment and impacts of large resource projects, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or CEAA, was changed upon introduction of CEAA, 2012 (Gibson 2012). CEAA, 2012, according to researchers Kirchoff et al. (2013), promotes economic growth over environmental protection. As a result of being brought into force through omni-bus Bill-C38, CEAA, 2012 was implemented without full discussion of the implications (Kirchoff et al. 2013).”
• The IESO’s 2023 Annual Planning Outlook emphasized the need for international cooperation and cross-border infrastructure to stabilize supply and meet demand under climate transition. Yet this proposal would arbitrarily restrict access to technologies and investments needed for decarbonization, especially in renewables and grid modernization.
• In 2023, the Canadian Bar Association raised red flags about governments introducing “legislation that grants ministers discretionary powers without meaningful oversight or avenues for appeal,” warning that such measures could be unconstitutional and discourage responsible economic development. This proposal is a textbook case.
• In 2022, Ontario's Auditor General found that the province was failing to properly assess environmental risks before approving mining exploration permits and had "no process to determine cumulative effects of multiple projects on the environment or Indigenous communities." [Auditor General of Ontario, 2022 Annual Report].