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: Environmental Assessment Act Removing Environmental Assessment Requirements for the York1 Waste Disposal Site Project

This part of the legislation changes how environmental assessments (EAs) are handled for certain major projects in Ontario, and weakens oversight in key cases:

Cancels Environmental Oversight for the Eagle’s Nest Mine (s. 3.0.1) ERO 025-0396:
The government is terminating a special environmental agreement that applied to the Eagle’s Nest multi-metal mine near McFaulds Lake in Northern Ontario (Ring of Fire region).

A related approval under the Environmental Assessment Act is also being revoked, meaning the project no longer has to meet those EA requirements.

Exempts Chatham-Kent Waste Project from Assessment ERO 025-0389 (Part II.3):
Under Part II.3 of the Act, big projects usually have to get approval from the Minister before moving ahead. But the Chatham-Kent waste disposal site does not..

In short:
The government is letting major industrial projects—like a large mine in Northern Ontario and a waste disposal site in Chatham-Kent to bypass normal environmental assessment processes. Removing them means less transparency, less consultation, and fewer protections for the environment and Indigenous lands.
Related Bill 5 Schedule 4 - Environmental Protection
through the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), which is a system businesses use to register certain activities that impact the environment (like emissions or waste handling):

Cancels the Existing Fee Document:
The government is revoking a document that was signed by the Minister which set the fees for registering in the EASR.

Allows for Refunds:
The Minister is now allowed to refund those fees if a registration is removed from the system—for example, if a business no longer needs to be registered or if their registration is cancelled under the Act.

In short:
It could make it cheaper or easier for businesses to withdraw from environmental oversight through the EASR, and give the Minister more discretion over fee handling. While it seems minor, This may signal a broader move to reduce the financial and regulatory burden on companies, even when their activities negatively affect the environment.

Related Schedule 5 ERO 025-0409 - Mining Act

This Schedule makes major changes to how mining is managed in Ontario, especially when it comes to protecting what the government calls the “strategic national mineral supply chain”—basically, making sure important minerals (like those used in batteries or electronics) are controlled and prioritized.

Key Concerns:

Economic Growth Takes Priority Over Environmental and Indigenous Concerns
The Act now explicitly states that mining activities should support Ontario’s economy. By embedding economic growth into the law’s purpose, environmental protection and Indigenous rights risk being sidelined when they are perceived to conflict with industry interests.

Minister Can Suspend Mining Rules With No Public Input
The Minister has new authority to suspend parts of the online mining claim system to protect the mineral supply chain. This power can be used without consultation, including on lands that may hold environmental significance or fall within Indigenous territories.

Fast-Tracking Mining Projects Reduces Oversight
A new permitting team can accelerate mining approvals by coordinating across ministries. This push for speed increases the risk that environmental reviews, duty-to-consult obligations, and community concerns will be bypassed or minimized.

Minister Can Deny or Cancel Mining Leases Without Safeguards
The Minister can now block or cancel leases and claims if they believe it benefits the mineral supply chain. This expands state control over land decisions — without guarantees that Indigenous rights, environmental harm, or treaty obligations will be considered.

Communities Cannot Challenge Harmful Decisions in Court
The law removes the right to take legal action against decisions made under these new powers — even if a mining claim threatens ecological health or violates Indigenous jurisdiction. By extinguishing legal challenges, it cuts off one of the few tools communities have to defend land and water.

In short:
These changes give the Ontario government sweeping new powers to control who can access or develop Ontario’s mineral resources, especially critical minerals. It prioritizes economic and national interests, and allows the government to override existing rights, cancel claims, or fast-track projects, often without public input. The removal of legal recourse also means people and communities can’t challenge these decisions in court, which raises serious concerns for landowners, Indigenous groups, and environmental advocates.

Related Bill 5 Schedule 7 ERO 025-0418 - Heritage Act Proposed Amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, Schedule 7 of the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025

Key Concerns:

Loss of Control Over Ancestral Lands:
The Minister can now order inspections on any land, even underwater, without consent. This could include traditional territories, raising the risk of intrusion, disruption, or claims on culturally important areas without involving Indigenous voices.

Barriers to Accessing Sacred Artifacts:
The law blocks anyone from touching or moving potential artifacts until a licensed archaeologist says it’s okay. This creates a colonial gatekeeping system, where Indigenous people may be denied access to their own cultural items or sites.

Artifacts Could Still Be Taken First, Returned Later—If at All:
Although some artifacts may be handed to Indigenous communities, this only happens after they’re seized. The power to decide where artifacts go still lies with the Minister, not the community they belong to.

Cultural Sites Can Be Ignored for Development:
The government can now exempt lands from heritage protections to prioritize housing or infrastructure. That means sacred or significant Indigenous sites can legally be bulldozed and communities have no legal way to stop it or seek justice.

Increased Surveillance Without Consent:
Investigators have new powers to search, seize, and demand documents—raising concerns about surveillance of Indigenous groups, cultural organizations, or businesses involved in heritage protection or repatriation efforts.

Related Bill 5 Schedule 8 025-0416 – Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 ERO 025-0416 Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025.
This change says that Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 does not apply to anything involving the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project.

What does that mean?
By exempting the Ontario Place redevelopment project from key parts of the Environmental Bill of Rights - specifically, the requirement to give public notice and allow for public comment - it effectively silences the voices of Ontarians and removes a critical layer of environmental accountability. This proposed change is dangerous to both the environment and our democracy.

Normally, the Environmental Registry ensures transparency and gives people a chance to weigh in on developments that could affect their communities and ecosystems. Removing this opportunity means decisions that could have serious environmental impacts might move forward without public oversight or scientific scrutiny. And it's not just limited to the Ontario Place site—the exemption also applies to related projects beyond the site, creating a broad loophole for unchecked development.

Related Bill 5 Schedule 9 ERO 025-0391 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 | Environmental Registry of Ontario

Key concerns:
The government can exempt trusted companies or projects from normal rules, like:
Municipal by-laws
Environmental rules
Other legal requirements

The rules can also be changed or modified just for those companies or projects in the zone.

Legal suits over these exemptions or changes are significantly limited. Certain legal claims (causes of action) are wiped out—they can’t be brought to court.

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.