Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.
Bill 5 passed third reading on June 4, and now just requires royal assent from the lieutenant government to become law.
Premier Doug Ford’s third term has begun with yet another attempt to build lots of things quickly in Ontario. As has become the pattern, one of the Progressive Conservatives’ first moves after winning the 2025 election was to introduce sweeping omnibus legislation: Bill 5, or the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act.
Introduced in April, on the eve of the Easter long weekend, the bill proposes to overhaul a number of regulations to accelerate energy and infrastructure development, as well as mineral extraction projects the government says are of strategic importance to the province. The bill waters down rules that protect endangered species and natural heritage sites, maintain oversight of mining activities, require respect for constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous Rights and mandate environmental assessments and protections.
Taken together, Bill 5 blunts the regulations that ensure construction and extraction don’t cause undue harm to land, water, wildlife and human health. It also empowers cabinet to create special economic zones where the laws that do remain can be circumvented to facilitate development.
While the province’s press release on Bill 5 is chock full of supportive quotes from mining executives and business organizations, the public response — from several Indigenous organizations and environmental groups — is one of deep concern.
Several First Nations of Treaty 9, which covers the mineral-rich Ring of Fire in northern Ontario that the government has promised to “unlock” as an economic hub, responded with an open letter to the province stating they would go to court over the omnibus bill, if necessary.
“These lands are not Ontario’s to do with as they wish. They are our ancestral lands. We have always been here and are going nowhere,” Donny Morris, Chief of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, said in the letter. “Whatever Ford and his government might want their base to think, nothing is happening up here without our consent.”
Ontarians can provide feedback on Bill 5 via the Environmental Registry of Ontario until May 17. A government committee is scheduled to hold public hearings on Bill 5 on May 22 and 26.
Here’s everything you need to know.
The government has stated its rationale for the bill is to protect Ontario from economic uncertainty spurred by U.S. President Donald Trump’s on-again-off-again tariff threats.
But many are skeptical of this reasoning. “Bill 5 should not be considered in legislative and policy isolation as a one-time paradigm shift in response to a suddenly hostile neighbour,” the Canadian Environmental Law Association wrote in a report to the government, asking it to withdraw the bill. Instead, the association said, the bill is “an extension of a more than half-decade long” series of new laws putting Ontario’s environment at risk.
The groundwork for the bill was set in the government’s April Throne Speech kicking off its third legislative term. In it, the Progressive Conservatives promised to “eliminate red tape” by restoring “sense and sanity to a labyrinth of rules and regulations that bring development in the province to a standstill.” In that speech, the Ford government also promised to further streamline “the province’s environmental assessment process and bring common-sense principles to the role of conservation authorities and species-at-risk requirements.”
Bill 5 was introduced two days later by Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce, who said it would “create a new ‘one project, one process’ model to cut government review timelines by 50 per cent and establish special economic zones, while protecting our environment.”
If passed, Bill 5 would allow the government to put regulations in place to create zones where “trusted proponents” and “designated projects” are exempt from provincial and municipal rules. The province deemed the Ring of Fire one such zone, but after significant pushback said on May 28 it would only do this after consulting First Nations following the bill’s passage. The government also introduced an amendment to include a category of special economic zones led by First Nations.
Few details were provided on what conditions, situations or proposals would warrant the need for such zones, and that may or may not come when the specific regulation is written. But there are no limits on the size, location or identity of the areas and businesses or projects that the government could choose to favour with this law — and it can decide this without a vote in the legislature.
In the context of a government with a well-documented track record of weakening environment rules in ways that could benefit some, this power is particularly concerning to many onlookers. The Canadian Environmental Law Association cautions the legislature to “take care that special economic zones … do not end up being little more than law-free sacrifice zones that severely impact the most vulnerable communities in Ontario society.”
Several municipalities have asked the Ford government whether these powers would exempt developers from rules regarding water and ecological conservation, as well as sustainable growth and development. “The lack of detail and clarity in the actual legislation raises significant concerns with respect to the potential for provincial overreach/interference in local decision-making and the side-stepping of important environmental and other requirements,” a May 13 staff report prepared for the council of Oxford County, in southwestern Ontario, reads.
The Ford government has already been consolidating powers to fast-track development through minister’s zoning orders — also known as MZOs — that override municipalities. Ontario’s auditor general found the Ford government used this tool 114 times from 2019 to 2023, which is a 17-fold increase in usage from the previous 20 years. It is unclear how special economic zones would work in tandem with minister’s zoning orders.
Public comments about special economic zones can be submitted until May 17.
Bill 5 grants the government unlimited power to provide any proponent or business the ability to conduct any activity it wants in any area the government chooses without oversight. That has led to concern among First Nations, especially those in the Ring of Fire, where the province wants a special economic zone designation to address delays in developing mines and associated infrastructure. Those delays are primarily because of the need to assess the potentially devastating impact of construction in a very large, critical and sensitive environment.
With Bill 5, the government is effectively removing the safeguards for the Ring of Fire. It exempts development from both ecological and archaeological assessments, which risks the destruction of First Nation burial sites, artifacts and lands.
After immense blowback from First Nations leaders during committee hearings on the bill, the province added an amendment on May 28 recognizing the duty to consult, which is already enshrined in the Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The bill does not clarify how First Nations will be able to participate in these decisions.
“Bill 5 reflects a dangerous and false narrative that presumes the Government of Ontario has unilateral authority to legislate over lands and resources without consultation or consent,” Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige said in a statement. “Our lands and resources are not for the province to sell, exploit or regulate away as economic corridors, especially without our consent.”
Along with Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Attawapiskat First Nation and Apitipi Anicinapek Nation have vowed to take the Ford government to court if the bill is passed.
“We will also rely on our own laws and the power of people who understand that selling out our lives and future for instant gratification of votes and money, is not a viable choice. It’s a death sentence,” Chief June Black of Apitipi Anicinapek Nation said in a joint statement.
Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin of Attawapiskat First Nation called the idea that mining could protect Canada from Trump misleading. “If any mine is ever allowed in the Ring of Fire, it’s 10 years away anyway,” she said in the same statement. “There are no roads up there as of yet. Mines don’t just get dropped down from the sky and start running right away. A lot of infrastructure and construction is required first. By the time a mine could start operating up here, Trump will be a distant memory.”
The powers proposed in Bill 5 are extremely broad, raising concerns the government is avoiding public accountability and shielding itself from civil liability. The bill includes protection against lawsuits for anyone involved in a project within a special economic zone.
It also bars legal action against the government, the Independent Electricity System Operator and Ontario Power Generation — both of which are Crown corporations — regarding energy decisions made via this new legislation. The bill vaguely empowers the minister to direct these agencies to to stop buying goods and services from certain countries, regions or territories.
In March, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined this sort of broad clause insulating government from legal challenge does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The proposed legislation replaces the province’s 18-year-old Endangered Species Act with a narrower Species Conservation Act. The new law gives cabinet (not a committee of scientists, as was previously the case) the power to decide which animals and plants should be protected, and abolishes obligations for the government to create recovery strategies and report on them.
Any other decisions about species at risk can also be delegated to the deputy minister or “any other employee in the ministry,” raising concerns about a lack of accountability and transparency in the execution of the new act.
In Ontario’s environmental registry listing for the new law, which is open for comments until May 17, the government said the previous Endangered Species Act was too complicated and delayed housing, transit and infrastructure projects. The new version prioritizes “sustainable economic growth” as a factor in decisions related to the protection of endangered species, removing the previously stated recovery and stewardship goals.
In a joint letter, over 100 civil and environmental organizations, including the National Farmers’ Union, Ontario Nature, the Toronto Zoo and various naturalist clubs across the province, urged the government to halt this move.
“Nationally, Ontario is now an outlier when it comes to preserving nature and biodiversity,” the letter reads. “That does not mean stopping all development. It means building strong local economies that are in harmony with nature, not in conflict.”
Notably, Bill 5 eliminates the government’s 2019 proposal to allow developers to put money into a conservation fund rather than taking steps to protect species. Decried as a “pay to slay” scheme, the money collected was supposed to be used for research and the protection of habitat. However, six years later, the program has never been properly administered. Bill 5 requires the money collected thus far (an unknown amount estimated to be in the millions) “to be spent on activities that are in alignment with species protection and conservation goals.”
Bill 5 weakens the province’s environmental assessment laws, particularly to exempt two projects that have the potential for massive ecological impact. The first is the proposed Eagle’s Nest multi-metal mine in the Ring of Fire, which was approved for an environmental assessment in 2015. The second is a waste disposal facility proposed by York 1 in Chatham-Kent that was approved for an assessment in 2024, after local residents demanded it.
It is not clear why the government has decided to use special legislation to exempt both projects from environmental review.
In the bill’s technical briefing, the province said the Eagle’s Nest mine’s assessment is “outdated” as the scope has changed since the company voluntarily agreed to a review more than a decade ago. Details on what has changed were not made clear.
In a statement, Neskantaga First Nation, whose lands Eagle’s Nest mine is proposed on, said the environmental assessment process “is currently the main channel for Indigenous consultation.” The proposed mine sits on the Attawapiskat River, a highly sensitive water system that is the nation’s “lifeline.” Bill 5 is a “ short-sighted approach to undermine our rights and interests,” it said.
“There will be no bulldozing across the Attawapiskat River without our consent,” the nation’s statement reads. “All attempts at fast-tracking to the Ring of Fire will fail. Our people will meet you on the land.”
The province’s technical briefing on the bill also says the York 1 dump was exempted because of “continued threats of border interruptions and tariffs” that demand the province expand its landfill capacity. As of 2023, Ontario exports nearly a third of its trash across the border. “Just imagine if tomorrow President Trump — and don’t put it past him — President Trump says we aren’t taking any more of Ontario’s waste,” Ford told reporters on April 17. “What do we do?”
Reporting by The Trillium has found the developers of the dump site have donated roughly $200,000 to the Progressive Conservatives since they came to power, a connection that has led Liberal MPP Ted Hsu to ask the integrity commissioner to investigate as a matter of public interest.
The government is promising to create a new “streamlined approval process for mining” by amending the Mining Act to emphasize “protection of Ontario’s economy” without a commitment to prevent harm to public health and the environment.
To do this, the province wants to create a specific government office to help companies get authorizations more quickly. In the environmental registry listing, the government says this new timeline will not apply to the consultation process with Indigenous communities, but offers few details on how speed and meaningful consultation can coincide.
Notably, the changes to the Mining Act also include granting the minister more powers to suspend mining operations if deemed necessary.
The bill would allow all proposals related to the controversial spa project on Toronto’s waterfront to be exempt from posting on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for public review. Registry postings are currently a legal requirement for any project that could impact ecology or energy in Ontario.
The change comes months after the province posted plans for a sewage pipe that would pump wastewater from the site into Lake Ontario, and then withdrew it after facing significant public opposition.
Updated on May 16, 2025, at 10:22 a.m. ET: This story has been updated to include comment from a letter on Bill 5, signed by 1oo civil and environmental organizations.
Updated on May 28, 2025, at 9:37 a.m. ET: This story has been updated to include an amendment introduced on May 28 to add Indigenous consultation to Bill 5.
Updated on June 5, 2025, at 9:01 a.m. ET: This story has been updated to note Bill 5 has passed third reading.
You may have noticed Canadians are in a bit of a mood ever since a certain somebody threatened our sovereignty and economic well-being. The impact...
Continue reading
Drop a group of young people into a remote forest and some will find fun...
Many people are interested in what Maryaam Lewis-Herbert has to say about the stars. Otherwise...
‘I took an oath that I would risk my life for what Canada stood for’:...
12 min. read