By Richard Lindgren, CELA Counsel
In recent years, the Ontario government has passed various omnibus bills which have drastically diminished or repealed important laws that protect the environment and safeguard public health and safety. To date, this lengthy list of amended or deleted laws includes the Environmental Assessment Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, Endangered Species Act, 2007, Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, Planning Act, Toxics Reduction Act, and other statutes designed to protect the public interest.
On April 17, 2025, Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Mines followed this omnibus playbook by introducing Bill 5 (Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025). Bill 5 includes ten different schedules which, if enacted, go well beyond mining regulation and are intended to amend or repeal key statutes which are important components of Ontario’s environmental law framework.
For example, Bill 5 proposes, among other things, to:
- change the Mining Act to expedite mining activities
- amend the Environmental Assessment Act to exempt two contentious projects (i.e., Dresden landfill and Eagle’s Nest Mine)
- repeal the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and replace it with a watered-down Species Conservation Act, 2025
- enact the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 to empower the Ontario government to declare “special economic zones” in which provincial laws and municipal by-laws are inoperative
While all ten of the Bill 5 schedules are objectionable for legal and policy reasons, CELA is particularly concerned about the environmental implications of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. In our view, this vague proposed legislation represents a direct assault on the rule of law since it enables the province to make regulations delineating zones in which “trusted proponents” or designated projects may not have to comply with existing legal requirements enacted by the Ontario Legislature (and by-laws made by municipalities) that otherwise apply to every individual and corporation.
CELA submits that granting discretionary dispensations or exemptions, in whole or in part, from protective legislation will likely result in the creation of contentious “law-free” zones in which environmental features, functions, and values will be sacrificed to generate private profit for proponents. To the extent that these zones are established to fast-track resource extraction or infrastructure development in remote or northern locations (i.e., the Ring of Fire), CELA is also highly concerned that constitutionally protected Indigenous rights will be adversely affected by this unprecedented approach.
The province’s apparent rationale for these and other changes in Bill 5 is that Ontario’s environmental laws must be substantially amended in order to facilitate economic development and mitigate current tariff battles. In CELA’s view, such claims are not credible and have not been substantiated by the Ontario government. Moreover, the long-discredited “jobs vs the environment” fallacy often invoked by elected officials (and proponents) to support de-regulation initiatives, governmental budget reductions, and staffing cuts within the public service is just not true. Good jobs can co-exist with good environmental protection – in fact they are both essential.
In response to these unmeritorious claims, CELA notes that Ontario’s environmental protections are not “red tape”, and that the province’s economic prosperity in the short- and long-term does not require removal of, or regressive changes to, or exemptions from, our bedrock environmental laws.
Regardless of how Ontario attempts to rationalize Bill 5, the bottom line is that Bill 5, if enacted, will weaken or eliminate legislative safeguards which protect the environment, human health, and Indigenous rights. For this reason, CELA strongly opposes all ten schedules in Bill 5, and we call upon the Ontario government to withdraw this unjustifiable attack on environmental law and the rule of law.
At present, Bill 5 has just completed Second Reading debate, and has been referred to the Standing Committee on the Interior for review and public hearings. In the meantime, CELA has prepared a detailed legal analysis of Bill 5 that has been submitted to the Ontario government and posted on CELA’s website for public review.
According to various Bill 5 notices posted on the Environmental Registry, the deadline for submitting public comments on the Bill 5 schedules is May 17, 2025. CELA encourages Ontario residents to let the province know that these latest legislative rollbacks are unacceptable, and that Bill 5 must be immediately withdrawn.
Blog: Ontario Bill 5 Attacks Environmental Law and the Rule of Law
By Richard Lindgren, CELA Counsel
In recent years, the Ontario government has passed various omnibus bills which have drastically diminished or repealed important laws that protect the environment and safeguard public health and safety. To date, this lengthy list of amended or deleted laws includes the Environmental Assessment Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, Endangered Species Act, 2007, Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, Planning Act, Toxics Reduction Act, and other statutes designed to protect the public interest.
On April 17, 2025, Ontario’s Minister of Energy and Mines followed this omnibus playbook by introducing Bill 5 (Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025). Bill 5 includes ten different schedules which, if enacted, go well beyond mining regulation and are intended to amend or repeal key statutes which are important components of Ontario’s environmental law framework.
For example, Bill 5 proposes, among other things, to:
While all ten of the Bill 5 schedules are objectionable for legal and policy reasons, CELA is particularly concerned about the environmental implications of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025. In our view, this vague proposed legislation represents a direct assault on the rule of law since it enables the province to make regulations delineating zones in which “trusted proponents” or designated projects may not have to comply with existing legal requirements enacted by the Ontario Legislature (and by-laws made by municipalities) that otherwise apply to every individual and corporation.
CELA submits that granting discretionary dispensations or exemptions, in whole or in part, from protective legislation will likely result in the creation of contentious “law-free” zones in which environmental features, functions, and values will be sacrificed to generate private profit for proponents. To the extent that these zones are established to fast-track resource extraction or infrastructure development in remote or northern locations (i.e., the Ring of Fire), CELA is also highly concerned that constitutionally protected Indigenous rights will be adversely affected by this unprecedented approach.
The province’s apparent rationale for these and other changes in Bill 5 is that Ontario’s environmental laws must be substantially amended in order to facilitate economic development and mitigate current tariff battles. In CELA’s view, such claims are not credible and have not been substantiated by the Ontario government. Moreover, the long-discredited “jobs vs the environment” fallacy often invoked by elected officials (and proponents) to support de-regulation initiatives, governmental budget reductions, and staffing cuts within the public service is just not true. Good jobs can co-exist with good environmental protection – in fact they are both essential.
In response to these unmeritorious claims, CELA notes that Ontario’s environmental protections are not “red tape”, and that the province’s economic prosperity in the short- and long-term does not require removal of, or regressive changes to, or exemptions from, our bedrock environmental laws.
Regardless of how Ontario attempts to rationalize Bill 5, the bottom line is that Bill 5, if enacted, will weaken or eliminate legislative safeguards which protect the environment, human health, and Indigenous rights. For this reason, CELA strongly opposes all ten schedules in Bill 5, and we call upon the Ontario government to withdraw this unjustifiable attack on environmental law and the rule of law.
At present, Bill 5 has just completed Second Reading debate, and has been referred to the Standing Committee on the Interior for review and public hearings. In the meantime, CELA has prepared a detailed legal analysis of Bill 5 that has been submitted to the Ontario government and posted on CELA’s website for public review.
According to various Bill 5 notices posted on the Environmental Registry, the deadline for submitting public comments on the Bill 5 schedules is May 17, 2025. CELA encourages Ontario residents to let the province know that these latest legislative rollbacks are unacceptable, and that Bill 5 must be immediately withdrawn.
Share: