Formal Rejection of Bill 5 –…

Formal Rejection of Bill 5 – Statement of Opposition
Submitted by: A Concerned Citizen of Ontario
Date: May 15, 2025
To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,
Subject: Rejection of Bill 5 – Environmental Protection and Species at Risk Act Amendments
I submit this formal statement to unequivocally reject Bill 5 in its current form. The proposed legislative amendments undermine critical environmental protections, contradict the government’s stated objectives of sustainability, and disregard the rights and interests of Indigenous communities and the public.
1. Erosion of Environmental Protections
Bill 5 proposes the removal of "harass" from the list of prohibited activities concerning wildlife within protected areas. This amendment significantly weakens existing safeguards and ignores well-established ecological and scientific evidence that harassment causes undue stress to animals, disrupts reproductive patterns, and may result in the abandonment of critical habitats. These actions are incompatible with responsible stewardship of Ontario’s biodiversity.
2. Contradiction of Stated Policy Objectives
While the bill cites “sustainable economic growth” and “efficiency and cost-effectiveness” as primary goals, the mechanisms proposed—including relaxed compliance tools and a "registration-first" approach—facilitate the destruction of ecosystems in the absence of robust preventative oversight. Sustainability cannot be achieved by sacrificing the long-term health of ecosystems for short-term economic benefits. These amendments compromise the very definition of ecological sustainability.
3. Insufficient Regulatory Safeguards and Enforcement
The proposed new compliance framework offers minimal deterrents for the unauthorized destruction of habitats and endangered species. It relies on post-harm measures that fail to protect at-risk populations preemptively. The shift toward more lenient and flexible compliance mechanisms represents a fundamental policy failure in preventing irreversible ecological harm.
4. Elimination of Oversight and Advisory Committees
The bill calls for the dissolution of advisory committees that provide critical scientific and ethical oversight. This move centralizes discretion within the Ministry and removes expert input, increasing the likelihood of politically motivated decisions and reducing transparency and accountability.
5. Inadequate Consultation with Indigenous Peoples and the Public
The bill references engagement with Indigenous communities but fails to identify which communities were consulted or how their input informed the drafting of this legislation. Moreover, the public consultation period—limited to a single month—is insufficient given the scope and gravity of the proposed changes. These procedural deficiencies call into question the validity of the bill’s consultative process and may contravene the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous Peoples as affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Conclusion and Rejection
For the reasons outlined above, I formally reject Bill 5. I call upon the Legislative Assembly and responsible Ministers to:
Withdraw or substantially amend Bill 5 to preserve current protections for species at risk;
Restore robust consultation mechanisms with Indigenous Nations and ecological experts;
Reinforce, rather than remove, oversight and accountability structures; and
Reaffirm the province’s commitment to responsible, science-based environmental governance.
The government must act not only in the interest of economic efficiency but in accordance with its moral, constitutional, and ecological responsibilities to current and future generations.
Respectfully submitted,
A Concerned Citizen of Ontario