We write on behalf of the…

We write on behalf of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (“SON”), in response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Bill 5” or “the Bill”).

In Bill 5, Ontario is scaling back protections in Ontario law for the environment, species at risk, and cultural heritage. The changes Ontario proposes in Bill 5 amount to an attack on our rights and way of life. There is a clear pattern to the changes proposed in the Bill: the government seeks to, at its discretion, remove regulations and safeguards in place that protect our Territory, reduce or circumvent the opportunities for First Nations to be consulted, and ultimately steamroll our rights and laws. The Bill cannot be passed in its current form.
SON and our relationship to our Territory
SON is an Anishinaabe Nation made up of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Saugeen First Nation. Our Territory – known to us as Saukiing Anishnaabekiing – consists of the Saugeen (Bruce) Peninsula, the 1.5 million acres of land to the south, and the surrounding waters of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. As a result of a series of historic treaties, including Treaty 45 ½ and Treaty 72, we are treaty partners with the Crown, though the Crown has not always respected and honoured our treaty relationship.
SON has lived in our Territory since time immemorial. Our Territory sustains us and is central to who we are as a people. Under Anishinaabe law, we have responsibilities to care for the lands and waters of our Territory. We hold the authority and responsibility to protect our Territory and the rights and interests of our people. We continue to hold and exercise our inherent jurisdiction to care for our Territory in accordance with our own laws. This includes protecting and caring for our Ancestors, sacred places, and the animals and plants that share our Territory: we have a relationship with our Territory and the species inhabiting it. We are all essential to the continued health of the Territory, and our ability to continue our way of life as Anishinaabe people.
We also hold and exercise exclusive Aboriginal and treaty rights throughout our Territory. Courts have recognized these rights, including SON’s right to fish commercially in our traditional waters.
Our assessment of legislation and projects affecting our Territory is guided by our Anishinaabe laws, values, teachings, knowledge system, and the wisdom of our Ancestors, ensuring that what our Ancestors safeguarded continues to be protected. We make informed decisions that protect, restore, and fulfill the vision of SON, with deep reverence for sacred sites and Ancestral burial places, the land, waters, way of life, and the well-being of all living relations. In doing so, we honour our Ancestors and uphold our responsibilities to all of Creation.
Embracing seven-generation thinking, SON considers the long-term and cumulative impacts on our Territory, our People and future generations. Any project that is approved by our Nation must lead to an overall benefit in terms of environmental health, cultural integrity, and social well-being. Projects must heal, restore, and achieve our vision for the land, waters, way of life, and the well-being of all our living relations, with costs of mitigations being secondary considerations. We require that all projects recognize and offset their impacts with significant improvements, ensuring a balance that aligns with our understanding of impact. We expect Ontario to adhere to these principles with legislation, decisions and activities that affect our Territory.

Our Territory is already under tremendous pressure from development and resource extraction. In particular, the development of the nuclear industry in our Territory has played a major role in shaping the land and SON People’s place within it. Without consultation or free, prior and informed consent, SON became host to Canada’s first commercial-scale Canada Deuterium Uranium reactor at Douglas Point; the world’s largest operating nuclear facility at the Bruce site; the vast majority of Ontario’s low and intermediate level waste at the Western Waste Management Facility; and nearly 45 percent of Canada’s used fuel.
Over the last 30 years, SON has undertaken enormous efforts politically and legally to ensure that the impacts of the nuclear industry are addressed and that our rights and interests are understood and protected going forward. SON has participated in almost every significant regulatory proceeding respecting nuclear projects and plans that stand to affect SON. These processes have been critical to allowing SON to fulfill its stewardship obligations, to protecting SON rights and interests, to strengthening the relationship between SON and the Crown, and to the Crown’s fulfilment of the constitutional obligations owed to SON. The degradation of the laws supporting these environmental and regulatory processes would threaten our Territory, our rights, our interests, and, fundamentally, our relationship with the Crown.
There are also over 500 pits and quarries in our Territory already. For decades, we have advocated for proper consultation on decisions about aggregate extraction in our Territory, and alerted Ontario to the impacts of intense aggregate development in our Territory. Despite this, it was not until we took legal action, resulting in a decision in 2017 that Ontario had breached its duty to consult and accommodate us relating to a specific project, that we began to be consulted on new aggregate applications and began entering into Environmental Protection Agreements directly with proponents being granted licenses to operate pits and quarries in our Territory. Nothing has been done to address the impacts of the intense and sustained aggregate mining in our Territory without any consultation or accommodation.
Developments in our Territory already impact wildlife – over the past few decades, we have seen a decline in biodiversity and an erosion of healthy ecosystems in our Territory, resulting in the undermining of our rights, culture and way of life. The individual and cumulative impacts of projects on our Territory are ongoing concerns for us, as we strive to maintain our relationships with the land and waters, which we have used and protected for time immemorial. Some species in our Territory are already at risk of disappearing.
We also have a long history of archaeological sites, including places that are the resting place of our ancestors and other culturally significant sites, being disturbed by development. We have had to fight for many years and will continue to fight to ensure these sites are treated with respect and cared for in accordance with our laws.
The changes Ontario proposes in Bill 5 amount to an attack on our rights and way of life. These changes, if made into law, take away essential procedural steps for archaeological protection, species at risk, and regulating development more generally that allow us to work with proponents and government agencies to protect our Territory. The changes will undermine our efforts to protect our Territory as nuclear development, aggregate extraction, and housing development intensify. They will take away the safeguards that are in place to protect our environment, and our sacred places.
While the existing processes are far from perfect, eliminating processes and steam rolling our rights is not the answer. And, while each of these individual changes will have negative effects on our rights and way of life, collectively they will be catastrophic for the health of our Territory: the impacts of each skipped regulation, failure to protect habitat, and disturbance of our culturally significant sites, added together, amount to a serious attack on the well-being of our Territory and Anishinaabe way of life. We cannot and will not allow Ontario to destroy our way of life and our Territory.

Bill 5 proposes to replace the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) with a new Species Conservation Act (“SCA”) and, in the interim, Bill 5 would amend the ESA to make many of the same changes planned for the SCA. In doing so, it would take away significant protections for species which are at risk of disappearing from Ontario. The ESA currently provides protections for over 200 different species, many of which are present in our Territory.
The proposed changes gut the existing protections and will put many species at risk of disappearing entirely. Our connection to our Territory includes connection with the animals and plants that share our land. We cannot allow changes that result in their disappearance from our Territory.
For nearly two decades, Ontario’s ESA has been a key component of environmental protection in the province. The existing ESA requires that species at risk and the habitats they rely on be protected from harm. Bill 5 would substitute the current definition of “habitat” with a greatly reduced, more limited area, as follows:
* In respect of an animal species,
- A dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar place, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more members of a species for the purposes of breeding, rearing, staging, wintering or hibernating, and
- The area immediately around a dwelling place described in subclause (i) that is essential for the purposes set out in that subclause.
* In respect of a vascular plant species, the critical root zone surrounding a member of the species, and
* In respect of all other species, an area on which any member of a species directly depends in order to carry on its life processes.
In other words, the proposed SCA would limit habitat protection only to the immediate surroundings of a “Threatened” or “Endangered” animal’s den, nest, wintering or staging area, or a plant’s root zone. [Strangely, the proposed Act apparently provides species that do not fit the definition of “animal” or “vascular plant” – presumably meaning lichens, mosses and fungi – a more robust habitat definition: “the entire area on which the species directly depends to carry on its life processes”].
Such a limited habitat definition for at-risk animal and plant species is certain to result in their further decline in Ontario, including in SON Territory, and may contribute to their extinction globally. Habitat for animals and plants must be defined to ensure protection of the entire area that any member of the species requires to carry out its life processes, including (but not limited to): denning and nesting sites, hibernacula, access to important food resources, reproduction sites, staging areas, essential ecological communities and features (e.g., forest interior, cold-water streams) in non-degraded condition, as well as suitable, safe habitat corridors that allow for movement and interactions (e.g., for breeding, seasonal feeding, staging and migration) of the species between such essential areas of habitat. SON will not stand for Ontario abrogating its responsibility to protect the rich biodiversity and natural heritage within SON Territory by sacrificing our most at-risk species and their habitats.
We also oppose the removal of protections against “harassment” of species from the laws. This means if a proponent impacts an area in a way that disrupts the normal behaviour of a species at risk, this will no longer be against the law. This change, combined with the narrow definition of habitat, will inevitably lead to species disappearing from our Territory.
SON also opposes the proposed discretionary powers (on the basis of social and economic concerns) of the executive branch with respect to official listing of species and protection of their habitat. Under the current ESA, decisions are made by an independent body, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk, or COSSARO, based on scientific information, including Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. Ontario is then required to list these species in the regulation which protects them. One of the most important features of the current process is that it is insulated from political interference. It is an independent body, by design. If the changes proposed in Bill 5 proceed, this would not longer be the case: Ontario could unilaterally decide that a species should not be protected, even where Indigenous knowledge holders and scientific evidence demonstrate otherwise. The legal provincial designation of “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, “Threatened” or “Special Concern” should not differ from the science-based, independent species status designation recommended by COSSARO, and ideally would not differ significantly from federal (COSEWIC) designation. SON also opposes any proposed legislative changes that would result in a lesser degree of protection in Ontario for species listed in federal wildlife protection lists and legislation, such as those noted in “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, “Threatened” or “Special Concern” on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk under the federal Species at Risk Act, SC 2002 c 29 (“SARA”)—specifically, species of birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, SC 1994, c 22 and aquatic species as defined in subsection 2 (1) of the SARA.
SON also opposes the removal of “recovery” as a goal for at-risk species and replacing it with “conservation”. Species are listed as “Endangered” or “Threatened” because they are at risk of becoming extinct in Ontario because their populations are unsustainably low and/or will become low if current declining trends continue. Conservation implies maintaining current conditions. Recovery implies restoring conditions that would allow the current trend to be reversed and the populations to be restored to a viable level. If recovery is not the goal, at-risk species are almost certain to be lost in Ontario. Further, under the SCA, Ontario will no longer be required to create a recovery strategy for species identified as endangered or threatened, and will not have to report on progress regarding the recovery of that species every five years. This will mean First Nations won’t have information available on the true impacts of this Bill on species, and it will be more difficult to hold the government accountable for these impacts. This shift away from recovery would be unacceptable to SON.
SON also opposes the proposed changes to the existing permitting process. Under the existing Environmental Species Act, 2007, SO 2007, c 6, proponents must apply for permits when a proposed project may adversely impact a listed species or its habitat. The existing permitting process involves review by environmental experts, with approval typically contingent on meeting specific requirements to limit or prevent harm to the species. Under Bill 5, that process is replaced in nearly all cases by an online registration form that, once submitted, allows the project to proceed with no expert review and no obligation to consider less impactful alternatives. While registrants will be required to comply with any rules Ontario creates through regulation, we have no indication at this point what, if any, rules Ontario might impose. How are Indigenous and Treaty rights addressed in such a process? How are “Endangered” and “Threatened” species, and biodiversity generally, protected in such a process? This will inevitably reduce the opportunities to First Nations to be consulted and accommodated. We note that similar systems have been used in the mining context and have been challenged as unconstitutional because they try to circumvent the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate.
SON are a fishing people. The health of Ontario’s fisheries is inextricably linked to the integrity of entire aquatic ecosystems—streams, wetlands, riparian corridors, and lakebeds—which function collectively to support spawning, nursery, foraging, and migratory habitats for fish species. Bill 5 undermines this ecological interdependence by narrowing environmental triggers, weakening habitat definitions, and exempting designated projects from oversight under the guise of economic development. Aquatic (and terrestrial) habitat degradation rarely results from a single catastrophic event but from the accumulation of small-scale, under-regulated activities that fragment habitat, increase sedimentation, alter flows, and degrade water quality. By eliminating the requirement for expert environmental review and allowing projects to proceed through self-registration, Bill 5 drastically increases the risk of unmitigated harm to fish populations and the ecosystems they rely on.
The exclusion of aquatic species from the scope of the new SCA, combined with exemptions from Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements, will lead to reduced detection and mitigation of fish mortality and habitat disruption—particularly in areas near industrial discharges, thermal plumes, and shoreline developments. For example, prior concerns raised about fish mortality at facilities like Bruce Power have highlighted the limitations of current screening processes. Bill 5 would further dilute these processes, making it even less likely that cumulative impacts on fish populations will be accurately assessed or meaningfully addressed. This approach runs counter to sound fisheries management, which requires full lifecycle habitat protection, long-term monitoring, and the precautionary principle in decision-making. Failing to maintain these standards could lead to irreversible losses in fish abundance, diversity, and commercial viability across Ontario’s waters.
SON has a court-affirmed, section 35 right to a commercial fishery. Ontario currently screens thousands of small works under provincial ESA, EA, and conservation‑authority regulations before anything is sent to federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). By stripping aquatic species from the SCA and by allowing EA exemptions, many works may skip provincial review entirely, landing on DFO’s desk late or not at all. Additionally, SON has consistently argued that provincial EA processes already underestimate cumulative fish‑kill risk at Bruce Power and elsewhere. Bill 5 will narrow EA triggers further and we are concerned about what this will mean in cases like this.
The Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate set out in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is triggered for both federal and provincial decisions that could adversely impact SON’s asserted or proven Aboriginal and treaty rights. Bill 5 contains a clause stating it does not “abrogate or derogate” Aboriginal rights, but the practical effect of swifter permits and exemptions will be to compress timelines and reduce the depth of consultation before habitats are altered.
We also note that the proposed increase in investment in species conservation programs from $4.5 million/year to $20 million/year is a change roughly equivalent to an investment of $0.11/per Ontario resident per year to $0.50/per Ontario resident per year, or <0.01% of the overall provincial budget. What does this level of support say about the current provincial government’s commitment to protecting our relations, the animals and plants that are most at risk of being lost forever and whose home these lands and waters have been since time immemorial?
Taken together, the proposed changes show a blatant disregard for the land, biodiversity, and the survival of species. These changes also show a blatant disregard for our rights, and our laws. In our Territory, we are interconnected with the creatures we share the land with, and rely on them to continue our way of life. Ontario cannot bulldoze biodiversity for the short term profit of very few.
We remind the Government of Ontario of its duty to consult, and that projects may only proceed in our Territory if they demonstrably protect, restore, and achieve our vision for the land, waters, way of life, and the well-being of all our relations, respecting our values, laws, and principles. Bill 5 must not be passed.

The sad truth is that this Bill proposes ‘solutions’ by taking aim at laws, regulations, processes and protections that are not problems, and are not the cause of delays.
In reality, those laws, regulations, processes, protections – and in our case, the Agreement – actually help developments proceed: Ontario currently relies on the very processes it is dismantling as a main avenue by which they satisfy their duties to consult and accommodate. Without those laws, regulations, processes and protections, Ontario’s constitutional obligations to us don’t go away. But, there is no clear path for them to be met: no existing bureaucratic mechanisms in place, no team responsible for seeing it through, and no personnel capable of doing the work.
Given this, it is clear that although the changes Ontario proposes in Bill 5 are aimed at speeding up development, they will inevitably have the opposite effect: if the government continues down this path and ignores First Nations’ constitutionally protected rights, it will likely lead to legal challenges. This is a far slower and more expensive process than the process set up by existing regulations. And, it unnecessarily exposes proponents to potentially costly litigation, and needlessly pits proponents and First Nations against each other. Proponents and Ontario would be far better served working with First Nations, to find a path forward that both safeguards the environment and allows economic development to proceed.