Comment on Bill 5 – ERO…

Comment on Bill 5 – ERO Registry Submission
Subject: Strong Opposition to Bill 5 due to Environmental, Legal, and Indigenous Rights Concerns
I am submitting this comment to express strong opposition to Ontario Bill 5, titled "Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act". The bill, as written, undermines core environmental protections, weakens public and Indigenous legal rights, and concentrates power in ways that pose serious risks to Ontario’s natural heritage and democratic integrity.
________________________________________
Key Concerns:
1. Environmental Deregulation (Schedule 2 – Endangered Species Act, 2007 and Schedule 10 – Species Conservation Act, 2025)
• Bill 5 proposes to repeal and weaken critical sections of the Endangered Species Act, which would not be adequately replaced by the proposed Species Conservation Act:
o Section 2.1 allows ministerial delegation of conservation responsibilities, which risks conflicts of interest and inconsistent enforcement.
o Section 7 enables the Lieutenant Governor in Council to pick and choose which species to list based on discretion, not science. It removes the requirement that all species be assessed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), politicizing what should be a science-based listing process.
o Section 17 removes safeguards before issuing permits that may harm species or habitat, including alternatives analysis and the requirement that activities not jeopardize survival or recovery of species.
o Section 2 changes the definition of “habitat” to weaken species habitat protections. For wildlife, “habitat” would now only include “dwelling place” and “area immediately around a dwelling place”, but now omitting areas needed for migration or feeding. For vascular plants “habitat” is merely defined as the critical rooting zone. Both of these habitat definitions are insufficient in terms of ensuring protection.
• These changes prioritize development over biodiversity, undermine science-based decision-making, contradict the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy and international agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity, and eliminate government accountability for protecting vulnerable ecosystems.
2. Threat to Democracy – Suppression of Legal Recourse and Accountability
Under Section 3.2, Bill 5 extinguishes causes of action and denies the public and Indigenous Peoples access to the courts in relation to actions taken under these legislative amendments. This applies retroactively and going forward.
• It includes provisions that remove the right to sue the government or private actors for actions taken under the Act (e.g., under new or amended regulatory authority).
• This is a dangerous precedent, effectively removing a core mechanism of public oversight and democratic redress.
• This contravenes the rule of law and basic tenets of administrative fairness.
• It shields the government from legal accountability for decisions that may cause environmental harm, health risks, or treaty violations.
Legal redress is not a regulatory nuisance — it is a democratic safeguard.
What if there is negligence or corruption, resulting in pollution or a spill or instability of a slope, resulting in health and safety impacts on a community or very serious environmental adverse effects?
3. Violation of Indigenous Rights and UNDRIP Commitments
Bill 5 enables the creation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) with broad powers to exempt developments from consultation, environmental assessments, or municipal planning laws.
• Bill 5 proposes mechanisms (especially the creation of SEZs) that bypass consultation obligations with Indigenous nations, even when activities impact treaty or traditional lands.
• There is no mechanism in the bill requiring free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities, which is a constitutional requirement under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada and Ontario claim to support.
• Bill 5 therefore violates Section 35 of the Constitution and Canada's commitment under UNDRIP to uphold free, prior, and informed consent.
• Indigenous territories, cultural sites, and traditional ecological knowledge are at direct risk if development occurs without mandatory consultation or redress.
This bill threatens Indigenous reconciliation efforts and risks violation of Canadian and international human rights law.
4. Fast-Tracked Special Economic Zones (SEZs) - Risk of Environmental Harm and Potential for Corruption and Lack of Oversight
The bill introduces new concepts of:
• “Trusted proponents” – private actors given fast-tracked approval status;
• “Special Economic Zones” – areas exempt from normal environmental rules.
These SEZs and “trusted proponents” are decided by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; however, the “prescribed criteria” are not defined. This leaves this unclear and communities and environment vulnerable.
• As stated above, Bill 5 furthers this risk since it removes oversight agencies and removes the ability of legal action.
• The broad powers granted to the provincial Cabinet to exempt projects from laws and regulations raise concerns about transparency and accountability. This could lead to favoritism, misuse of power, and corruption, as projects might be approved without adequate public scrutiny.
• The “Special Economic Zones” and “trusted proponent” incentivize companies to lobby government officials and increases the risk of corruption.
• Erodes democratic oversight and accountability, concentrating decision-making power in the provincial Cabinet without sufficient checks and balances.
These measures could allow development and large-scale industrial or resource extraction projects (e.g., mining, logging, landfills) to proceed:
• Without independent environmental assessment or baseline surveys;
• Without consideration of cumulative ecological impacts;
• Without consultation with Indigenous Peoples;
• Without municipal or public input.
The proposed “trusted proponent” and SEZ mechanisms could allow major industrial or resource projects to proceed without proper review, cumulative impact analysis, or local input. These unchecked projects may lead to pollution, habitat loss, and long-term environmental degradation, particularly in sensitive regions such as wetlands or northern watersheds.
Removing environmental oversight has measurable, often irreversible, consequences. An example of how this may go wrong could include a project where blasting is being done in areas of acid rock areas, which can result in acid rock drainage from the area that can pollute surface waters and can have long-term irreparable negative implications on surrounding environments and communities. By not requiring typical baseline surveys, risks to natural environments and communities are high. This is still a legacy issue in many northern communities, including First Nations.
________________________________________
Recommendation:
I urge the Government of Ontario to withdraw or substantially amend Bill 5 to ensure that:
• Environmental protections are restored and science-driven.
• Legal rights to challenge harmful or illegal decisions are maintained.
• Indigenous consultation is mandatory and binding.
• Development is subject to full public, environmental, and municipal review.
Bill 5, as written, places short-term economic gains ahead of long-term environmental health and public accountability. Ontario deserves growth that is responsible, inclusive, and sustainable — not deregulation that endangers ecosystems, violates rights, and silences communities.
I oppose Ontario Bill 5 due to its obstruction of science, unclear boundaries/definitions on what powers the Provincial government and development Proponents have, undemocratic removal of the checks and balances and legal action that are required to hold government or Proponents accountable, resulting in negative impacts on local communities and First Nations as well as Species and species at risk (SAR).