Initial public consultation…

Initial public consultation concerns:

Proposed Bill 5, “Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act” is split into 10 different schedules and whereby some schedules have a different ERO reference number of input and others do not (Schedules 1, 4 & 8)
ERO numbers for response, all due at the same time, May 17, 2025 - 30 days in this instance doesn’t allow for adequate public stakeholder input given the range and depth of the proposed legislative changes.
Given the haste with which all the components of this Bill have been put together, there should be serious concern about how much expert and scientific consultation was sought as part of the preparation process.

Summary of Ontario’s Legislative Changes (10 Schedules, 2025)

These are the potential benefits the province is looking to secure:
Faster Project Approvals, especially in Special Economic Zones and Ontario Place.
Streamlined Energy Procurement allows the government to prioritize local or aligned suppliers in energy projects of its choosing.
Flexible Development Tools allows the government to modify or exempt regulations in priority zones

Key Concerns If Implemented - the ‘not-so-hidden’ cost:

Environmental Oversight Weakened:
Several laws now limit or bypass public consultation, especially under the Environmental Bill of Rights. This reduces transparency and accountability.

Species Protections Rolled Back:
The new Species Conservation Act replaces the stronger Endangered Species Act, softening legal protections and enabling more development in sensitive habitats.

Indigenous Rights Overlooked:
Though artifacts may be returned to Indigenous communities, the broader exemption powers and lack of consultation could undermine Indigenous stewardship of land and heritage.

Erosion of Democratic Participation:
Legal rights to comment, appeal, or sue over environmental and development decisions are restricted or extinguished in several areas, limiting public and legal recourse.

Specific to this ERO: The Ontario government is proposing major changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007, and many of them reduce protections for at-risk wildlife and give the government more control over decisions.

Key Concerns:

Weakened Purpose of the Act: The overall goal of the Act is being changed, which could shift the focus away from strong protection of species at risk.
Redefining “Habitat” (s. 2(1)): The definition of what counts as a species’ “habitat” is being updated, which could narrow what areas get protected.

Minister Can Delegate Power (s. 2.1): The Minister of the Environment can now hand over their powers to others, potentially reducing oversight.

Listing of Species is No Longer Automatic (s. 7):
Right now, species assessed as endangered or threatened by COSSARO (the expert science committee) must be listed and protected.
Under the changes, the government can choose whether or not to list those species (s. 7(1)).
If a species is removed from the list, its protections immediately end (s. 7(3)).

Immediate Protections Removed: Species that get listed will no longer get automatic, temporary protection while full regulations are developed.

Removal of Response Plans and Agreements: The government will no longer be required to create action plans or agreements to help species recover.

Easier to Approve Harmful Activities (s. 17): The rules are changed so permits to damage or destroy species or their habitats can be granted more easily, with fewer conditions.

Hearings Eliminated (s. 20 & 30): The right to a hearing on certain species-related decisions is being replaced with a more limited appeals process.

End of Species Protection Fund (s. 20.3): The flow of money into the fund used for species recovery is being stopped.

Agency Wind-Down (s. 20.19): The agency that helps implement the Act will be shut down.

New Powers to Demand Info (s. 22.1): People must now answer questions from government officials to check if they’re following the rules.

More Inspections, Less Oversight: Officials can now inspect without a warrant in more cases.

Shift in Enforcement Powers: Stop orders are removed, and new orders like mitigation orders are added, giving more control to the Minister and provincial officers.

Advisory Committees Removed: The Minister is no longer required to set up advisory groups with experts.

Special Regulation Requirements Repealed (s. 57): Rules that made it harder to weaken protections through regulations are gone.

Schedules Repealed: Schedules 1 to 5, which included lists of species and habitat details, are being removed.
In short:
Endangered and at-risk species and the avenues to protect them have been dismantled in order to facilitate development.

Related ERO - Schedule 10 ERO 025-0416- Species Conservation Act, 2025

Key Concerns:

The updated approach to species protection includes new systems and structures but beneath the surface, several changes weaken the province’s ability to prevent species decline and extinction. While the law maintains some conservation elements, it introduces gaps that place vulnerable wildlife and habitats at greater risk:

Partial Protections for Some Species
If species are already listed under federal laws, they will not receive full protection under Ontario’s legislation. Some at-risk species may be monitored without meaningful provincial intervention — leaving them in danger despite their known vulnerability.

Extinction Becomes the Threshold, Not the Warning Sign
The legislation prohibits actions that would cause a species to become extinct in Ontario however, it does not prevent significant declines in population or habitat loss that fall short of extinction. This shifts the standard of protection dangerously low — effectively allowing harm to continue until a species is on the brink.

Permitting System May Facilitate Harmful Activity
While permits are required for activities that may affect species or their habitats, the authority to issue, amend, or revoke these permits rests solely with the Minister. This centralized discretion creates the possibility that industrial or development projects may be approved even if they compromise species survival, especially if those projects align with broader government priorities.

Transparency Without Safeguards
A new digital registry does not ensure these decisions will be grounded in conservation science or subject to independent oversight. Public visibility, without corresponding accountability, offers little assurance that species will be protected from harmful decisions.

Optional Guidelines Offer Weak Enforcement
The Minister may issue codes, standards, or best practices for species protection but these remain optional and are not binding. This undermines efforts to establish clear, enforceable rules for habitat preservation and recovery, relying instead on voluntary or situational compliance.

Risk of Disruption During Legal Transition
As the province transitions from the previous Endangered Species Act to this new framework, there is potential for disruption in existing protections, funding programs, and recovery efforts. Any pause in these activities, even temporary, may have lasting consequences for species already under stress from climate change, habitat loss, and human activity.
In Conclusion:
We are opposed to the aforementioned components of the 10 schedules of Bill 5. This Bill dismantles Ontario’s science-based species protections, narrowing what counts as habitat and giving the government sweeping discretion. By putting hasty development first, it abandons ecological responsibility, vastly undermines Indigenous rights, and erodes democratic oversight — leaving at-risk species with few to no safeguards, no path to recovery, and communities with no legal recourse.
Recommendations
The goal should be to accelerate development without compromising public rights or nature’s protection. These alternatives can help strike a balance where:

Clean energy projects are fast-tracked and incentivized,
Environmental standards are upheld,
Public and Indigenous participation remains central,
Biodiversity and ecosystems are safeguarded.

1. Streamline Processes Without Eroding Oversight
Alternative: Instead of completely bypassing environmental consultation, fast-track processes for projects that are already deemed environmentally neutral or have pre-approved environmental standards. This allows for quicker approvals but ensures environmental safeguards remain intact.
How It Helps: Maintains transparency and public involvement, while still enabling fast-tracking of clean energy and infrastructure projects.

2. Strengthen Public and Indigenous Consultation
Alternative: Introduce mandatory consultations with Indigenous communities and local residents for major projects, especially in Special Economic Zones or redevelopment areas like Ontario Place. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives early in the planning process helps ensure land and cultural protection.
How It Helps: Ensures Indigenous rights and community input are not sidelined, fostering collaboration and better decision-making.

3. Environmental Integrity with Flexibility
Alternative: Use clear criteria for when exemptions or modifications to environmental rules apply—such as for projects that demonstrate net positive environmental impact, like carbon-offsetting or biodiversity restoration projects.
Introduce a "green certification" for developers that meet sustainability standards, allowing them to access expedited approvals.
How It Helps: Supports clean energy projects while maintaining strong environmental protections and public trust. It also incentivizes developers and builders to consistently apply sustainable practices making them the norm in the industry.

4. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability
Alternative: Create a more transparent public dashboard on the ERO to track ongoing projects, environmental assessments, and public consultations. This allows citizens to stay informed, share concerns, and have access to real-time data without having to rely on reactive legal processes.
How It Helps: Increases public engagement, ensures accountability, and supports clean energy/mining development while keeping stakeholders informed.

5. Preserve and Improve Species Protection
Alternative: Create conservation easements and partnerships with developers to protect habitat alongside development.
How It Helps: Balances species protection with economic growth, ensuring that development doesn’t come at the cost of biodiversity.

6. Ongoing Investment in Conservation Programs
Alternative: Expand the Endangered Species Act to include more public-private partnerships, with funding for habitat restoration, sustainable land-use planning, and community-based conservation efforts. Provide incentives for landowners or businesses to contribute to biodiversity preservation and carbon reduction.
How It Helps: Promotes conservation without stifling development, offering incentives for environmental stewardship.

7. Ensure Fair Compensation and Legal Recourse
Alternative: Instead of extinguishing certain legal claims or appeals, reform the appeal process to make it more accessible and transparent, while ensuring that meritorious claims can still proceed, especially for cases where public health or environmental justice is at stake.
How It Helps: Ensures that people still have access to legal avenues for holding the government accountable while reducing frivolous lawsuits that delay important projects.

8. Foster Green Innovation in Special Economic Zones
Alternative: Designate Special Economic Zones that specifically promote green technologies and sustainable businesses, such as renewable energy projects, clean-tech startups, or environmental research hubs. Provide incentives for companies that meet sustainability and environmental standards.
How It Helps: Encourages clean energy development, green innovation, and investment opportunities while maintaining environmental protections within SEZs.