The Ontario government’s…

The Ontario government’s proposed Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, is deeply troubling from both an ecological and governance perspective. If passed, this bill will significantly weaken environmental protections for species at risk and set a dangerous precedent for how natural ecosystems are managed in Ontario. As someone who is concerned about the long-term health of our environment and our responsibilities to future generations, I urge the Ontario government to reconsider this legislation.

First and foremost, Bill 5 proposes to repeal the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and replace it with the Species Conservation Act, a law that lacks the robust, science-based protections that have been in place for nearly two decades. The new act removes the automatic listing and recovery planning process that currently triggers legal protections for species at risk. Instead, it gives the Cabinet the discretion to decide which species deserve protection—turning what should be a scientific process into a political one (Bowman, 2025). This shift undermines the credibility of Ontario’s environmental policy and could delay or deny critical protections needed to prevent extinction.

One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed legislation is how it redefines what qualifies as a species’ “habitat.” The current ESA recognizes habitat in a broad, ecologically meaningful way—covering areas where species forage, migrate, and breed. Bill 5, however, reduces this definition to a den, nest, or the immediate surroundings, with the added possibility for Cabinet to further narrow it. This is especially dangerous given that habitat loss is one of the leading drivers of species extinction globally (Gibson, Hassan, & Holtz, 2020). Limiting protections to such small areas ignores the complex ecological needs of species and virtually ensures their continued decline.

Additionally, Bill 5 eliminates the requirement to develop recovery strategies for listed species. Under the current ESA, these strategies are essential to guiding habitat restoration and ensuring that at-risk populations stabilize and grow. Without them, there’s no clear path to recovery, only reactive, short-term responses that fail to address systemic threats (Favaro et al., 2014). Removing recovery planning undermines the very purpose of species protection legislation, which should be about restoring ecological balance, not just avoiding fines.

Another alarming change is how development projects would be approved under the new bill. Instead of going through a permit review process that includes input from environmental experts, developers would simply fill out an online registration form. Once submitted, they could proceed with activities that could destroy habitat or kill at-risk species, without any meaningful oversight or public input (Bowman, 2025). This not only weakens environmental enforcement, but also creates a dangerous loophole that prioritizes economic speed over ecological responsibility.

Furthermore, the Special Economic Zones Act, embedded within Bill 5, grants unprecedented power to the provincial Cabinet. It allows the government to override existing provincial and municipal laws in designated areas, effectively creating “law-free” zones for industrial activity. This raises serious democratic and constitutional concerns, particularly with respect to Indigenous consultation and rights. As legal scholars have pointed out, Indigenous communities must be meaningfully involved in any decision-making processes that affect their traditional territories (Borrows, 2017). Bill 5 offers no clear mechanisms for this, making it an affront to reconciliation and Indigenous sovereignty.

The broader implications of Bill 5 are equally concerning. We know from international research that strong environmental regulations are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems and ensuring long-term economic sustainability (IPBES, 2019; Birkholz et al., 2022). Bill 5 does the opposite: it undermines protections, accelerates habitat destruction, and weakens Ontario’s ecological resilience in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss.
In closing, I strongly oppose Bill 5 and urge the Ontario government to withdraw it. Instead, the province should strengthen species protections, invest in recovery efforts, and commit to Indigenous-led conservation approaches rooted in both science and traditional ecological knowledge. Gutting environmental laws for the sake of fast-tracking development is not progress—it’s regression.

References
Birkholz, S., Muro, M., Jeffrey, P., & Smith, H. M. (2014). Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. The Science of the Total Environment, 478, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.061
Borrows, J., Boisselle, A., Université de Montréal. Faculté de droit, host institution, & Conférence Chevrette-Marx. (2017). Indigenous law and governance : challenging pre-contact and post-contact distinctions in Canadian constitutional law?
Bowman, L. (2025, April 30). Ford’s omnibus bill guts environmental protections. Ecojustice. https://ecojustice.ca/news/demystifying-bill-5-how-doug-fords-omnibus-b…
Favaro, B., Claar, D. C., Fox, C. H., Freshwater, C., Holden, J. J., & Roberts, A. (2014). Trends in Extinction Risk for Imperiled Species in Canada. PloS One, 9(11), e113118–e113118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113118.
Gibson, R. B., & Hassan, S. (2005). Sustainability assessment : criteria and processes. Earthscan.
Leveraging Sustainability: Insights from the IPBES Global Assessment. (2019). Smart Prosperity Institute.