Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025. I would like to raise a concern and provide supporting evidence regarding Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025:

The proposed Bill would eliminate "recovery" for species, aiming for a stable population.

The province's constitutional need to engage with Indigenous nations is largely ignored in the legislation, which critics claim may fully bypass Indigenous rights (Ridley, 2025).

Excluding Part II weakens public oversight and expands the Minister’s powers, risking environmental protection.

In summary, Bill 5 aims to eliminate species recovery efforts and redefine "habitat" in a way that could weaken protections for critical habitats, bypass Indigenous rights, and limit public engagement, raising concerns about its long-term impact on Ontario's environment and communities. Please see below for additional details and pertinent literature.

1. The proposed Bill would eliminate "recovery" for species, aiming for a stable population.

The proposed Bill 5 aims to eliminate "recovery" for species, targeting only stable populations. This shift undermines efforts to restore endangered species and threatens biodiversity. One significant change in the proposed act is the redefinition of "habitat," limiting it to nests and dens. This narrow definition, subject to subsection (3), politicizes protection decisions and leaves declining species without essential resources (Bowman, 2025, p.2).

Southern Ontario faces unique challenges due to its developed regions and rich agriculture. With less than 1% of the area protected, over 80% of species are at risk. Effective protection requires balancing ambitious targets with rising costs (Proctor et al., 2022, p.7). Algera et al. highlight Ontario’s proponent-driven approach to managing at-risk species using the American Eel as a case study. They argue that limited effort, vague legislative language, unclear objectives, and weak monitoring guidance have hindered short-term conservation goals (Algera et al., 2022, p.166-167).

Canada's Species at Risk (SAR) law is praised for its power but compromised by amendments allowing habitat recreation elsewhere. This enables developers to bypass protections, destroying critical habitats (Bethlenfalvy & Olive, 2021, p.1169). In regions like Niagara, weakened protections threaten essential ecosystem services, leading to habitat degradation and loss (Bethlenfalvy & Olive, 2021, p.1171). The proposed act's redefinition of "habitat" further jeopardizes these ecosystems, undermining efforts to preserve vital habitats, community resilience, and drinking water sources.

2. The province's constitutional need to engage with Indigenous nations is largely ignored in the legislation, which critics claim may fully bypass Indigenous rights (Ridley, 2025).

The province's constitutional obligation to engage with Indigenous nations is largely ignored in the legislation, potentially bypassing Indigenous rights (Ridley, 2025). Meaningful inclusion of Indigenous peoples is essential for effective biodiversity conservation. Donny Sutherland from Constance Lake First Nation highlights the health concerns raised by a fungal infection outbreak in 2021 (Ridley, 2025, p.1). Bill 5, proposed by the Ford government, aims to loosen environmental protections, exempting industries from laws and alarming Indigenous communities. The bill lacks provisions for meaningful consultation with First Nations, critical to upholding Indigenous rights (Ridley, 2025, p.9). Environmental advocates fear significant ecological harm in regions like the Ring of Fire, where mining activities are proposed (Ridley, 2025, p.15). Indigenous voices express deep concern over the long-term impact of mining and pollution on their communities.

The proposed act states the need to identify at-risk species using scientific, community, and Indigenous traditional knowledge, requiring the Minister to recommend members of COSSARO with relevant expertise (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2025, p.39-41). However, it fails to ensure meaningful consultation or decision-making authority for Indigenous nations, risking bypassing Indigenous rights and failing to protect ecological values and cultural preservation. Since its establishment in 2003, SARA has faced criticism for poor performance in restoring species, with populations decreasing by 28% despite legislative measures (Turcotte, 2021, p.3). Issues include incomplete Indigenous consultation, inconsistencies, delays, biased listing procedures, and poor prioritization (Turcotte, 2021, p.14). Discretionary language limits enforcement (Turcotte, 2021, p.11). Indigenous knowledge offers valuable conservation techniques, but the proposed act fails to incorporate meaningful inclusion (Saint, 2023, p.42).

3. Excluding Part II weakens public oversight and expands the Minister’s powers, risking environmental protection.

The act excludes Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, from applying to the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project, limiting public consultation and environmental oversight (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 2025, p.34). Public participation increases awareness, policy legitimacy, and community engagement (Khatibi et al., 2021, p.5). Bottom-up strategies promote community empowerment and successful adaptation plans correlate with public engagement (Khatibi et al., 2021, p.15). The act extinguishes causes of action related to amendments in various acts, limiting legal recourse for those negatively affected. It expands the Minister’s powers to suspend the mining lands administration system and cancel mining claims to protect the strategic national mineral supply chain, potentially sidelining existing environmental regulations.