Bill 5, Protect Ontario by…

Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, represents one of the most significant and dangerous overhauls of environmental and Indigenous governance in Ontario’s recent history. This comment paper opposes the passage of Bill 5, particularly Schedule 2 and Schedule 9 (Special Economic Zones Act, 2025). Together, these schedules dismantle science-based species protections, redefine habitat to exclude vital ecological functions, bypass consultation with Indigenous Nations, and authorize politically-motivated overrides of environmental safeguards.
These changes will lead to rapid degradation of Ontario’s biodiversity and further erode the treaty and constitutional rights of Indigenous peoples. This comment urges the Legislature to reject Bill 5 in its current form. Bill 5 removes the mandatory requirement for the government to list species identified as at risk by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). COSSARO is an independent, science-driven body that incorporates Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) and has historically ensured that species classifications lead to timely protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Under the new framework, the listing of species is left entirely to the discretion of Cabinet, which can selectively ignore COSSARO recommendations without providing rationale. No transparent process or criteria are proposed. This shifts species protection from an evidence-based model to a political one, enabling lobbying pressures to outweigh ecological urgency. Even if a species is scientifically determined to be at risk of extinction, protections can now be arbitrarily withheld.
One of the most concerning amendments in Bill 5 is the redefinition of “habitat” under the Endangered Species Act. The current definition includes not only the “residence” of a species (e.g., den or nest) but also the broader landscapes and ecosystems needed for feeding, reproduction, migration, and hibernation. These areas are essential to the survival of species and support biodiversity resilience.
Bill 5 narrows the definition of habitat to exclude these functional ecological areas, protecting only the specific sites animals use for shelter. This eliminates protections for migration routes, breeding grounds, and foraging areas—despite robust scientific consensus that such sites are vital for species persistence (Couturier, 1999).
Without these protections, conservation strategies will be ineffective, and the viability of already vulnerable populations will decline further.
While Ontario asserts that it will continue to fulfill its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Nations under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Bill 5’s structure deliberately limits the legal triggers for consultation. The Special Economic Zones Act (Schedule 9) gives the government authority to exempt entire regions and projects from any permitting or regulatory processes. These are the processes that normally constitute “Crown conduct” and would require consultation.
If no permits are issued, and no licenses are granted, then no procedural “hook” exists to activate consultation requirements. This effectively allows the province to move forward with development that affects Indigenous lands, waters, and rights without engaging Indigenous governments. In doing so, Bill 5 may violate both domestic constitutional obligations and Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Indigenous voices are so important to government today (Reed, 2021), and Bill 5 further threatens this notion.

References

Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario. Unpublished Bird Studies Canada Report

Reed G, Brunet ND, Longboat S, Natcher DC. Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance. Conserv Biol. 2021 Feb;35(1):179-189. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13532. Epub 2020 Jul 17. PMID: 32378218; PMCID: PMC7984387.