Recent legislative proposals in Ontario, specifically those within Bill 5, titled the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025,[1] signals a seismic shift in the province’s approach to resource extraction. As highlighted in part two of this series on the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 (Schedule 9), Bill 5 introduces sweeping changes that concentrate power and pose significant risks. This post, part three delves into Schedule 5’s amendments to the Mining Act, 1990, which echo concerning trends regarding executive authority, environmental oversight, and Indigenous rights. These changes, ostensibly to enhance the provinces economic interests while accelerating and expediting resource development, reveals a troubling prioritization of economic consideration over environmental protection, Indigenous rights, transparency, and due process.
A Shift in Purpose: Economy First?
One of the most fundamental changes involves reframing the Mining Act’s core purpose. Section 2 of the Act is amended to ensure that the encouragement of prospecting, registration of mining claims, and exploration for mineral resource development is pursued to a degree that is “consistent with the protection of Ontario’s economy”.[2] This subtle but significant shift in language signals an elevation of economic considerations, potentially disrupting the previously understood balance with environmental protection and Indigenous rights. New rules, processes, definitions, and exemptions to support this economic focus will be determined through regulation, often at a later date and with less public scrutiny.
Sweeping New Powers for the Minister
The amendments grant the Minister of Mines sweeping new discretionary powers, largely unchecked and justified by the broad aim of protecting the “strategic national mineral supply chain”. These powers allow the Minister to:
- Suspend the Mining Lands Administration System (MLAS): The Minister can, without prior notice or hearing, suspend MLAS functions if deemed desirable for protecting the strategic national mineral supply chain.[3] Such orders expire after 10 days unless extended, again without notice.[4] Crucially, no compensation is payable for such suspensions[5] and public ability to track mining claims could be removed.
- Control Access and Participation: The new Section 26.1 allows the Minister, without notice or hearing, to suspend, restrict, or terminate user MLAS accounts, or prohibit registrations and terminate prospector’s licences for the same strategic chain rationale.[6] No compensation is provided.[7]
- Deny Leases and Cancel Claims: Section 81 is amended to allow the Minister to deny lease issuance without prior notice or hearing for strategic supply chain protection.[8] Furthermore, the new Section 176.1 grants authority with LGIC approval, without notice or hearing, to unilaterally cancel claims, licences or terminate leases for this purpose.[9] Affected partiers are not entitled to compensation.[10]
These centralized powers often bypass judicial or administrative review. When making these determinations, the Minister is required to consider factors such as any risk assessment provided by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the economic interests of Ontario, and any prescribed factors.[11] The lack of specificity around thresholds for intervention introduces significant regulatory uncertainty. This concentration of power, justified by broad notions of protecting strategic interests, severely limits due process and accountability. The framing of mineral resources as “strategic” or “critical” appears to be used as a means to diminish established rights and procedural safeguards. When access to certain minerals is elevated to a matter of national or provincial security, the normal expectations of transparency, consultation, and compensation for impacted parties can be more easily set aside, potentially reducing complex assertions of inherent rights to mere impediments to economic strategy.
“One Project, One Process”: Expediency Over Scrutiny
To achieve accelerated resource development, the bill proposes a “one project, one process” regime. A new Section 153.0.1 allows the Minister to establish a “mine authorization and permitting delivery team” for any project designated by the Minister.[12] This team will prepare an integrated authorization and permitting plan and co-ordinate with other ministries to expedite application, review, and decision-making processes,[13] aiming to reduce provincial government review times by as much as 50%.
While proponents might welcome the suggestion of increased efficiency, this drive for speed comes with critical caveats that risk prioritizing rapid development over thorough review and just outcomes. Binding service standards for review times, which can be prescribed by regulations,[14] will not apply to environmental assessments (EAs) carried out under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act, nor to the time required for Ontario (or the proponent) to undertake consultations with Indigenous groups.[15] Without addressing these often lengthy and crucial processes, it is unlikely that Bill 5, on its own, will substantially expedite the development of designated mining projects in a responsible manner. Furthermore, there are concerns that this “concierge service” for fast-tracking permits, offered without clear criteria or transparency, could lead to inefficient resource allocation, preferential treatment for well-connected firms, and an exacerbation of existing power imbalances if Indigenous communities lack commensurate support to navigate these accelerated timelines.
Indigenous Rights Under Threat
The proposed changes to the Mining Act pose significant threats to Indigenous rights and interests. The bill notably fails to adequately address or enhance Indigenous consultation processes, a critical component for the success and ethical conduct of mining projects. The drive for expediency in mining approvals inherently conflicts with the time required for thorough due diligence and meaningful, rights-based engagement with Indigenous communities. Expedited approval processes and diminished oversight risk resulting in superficial consultations that fail to adequately address the full scope of Indigenous concerns, including those related to cumulative impacts across entire traditional territories, not just isolated project sites. The team established under s. 153.0.1 may support efforts to fulfil the Crown’s duty to consult,[16] but this is not a guaranteed or strengthened mandate, nor does it ensure the capacity for Indigenous nations to meaningfully participate when faced with accelerated timelines and complex technical data.
The suspension of public access to mining claim information through MLAS further exacerbates this risk, hindering Indigenous communities’ ability to monitor and engage with proposed activities on their lands. Mining projects often have lasting impacts on lands, water, wildlife, and cultural heritage, including sacred sites. The deregulatory thrust of this legislation appears to directly infringe on Indigenous peoples’ constitutionally protected section 35 rights. While the bill aims to accelerate processes in the name of economic growth, its approach, by potentially sidelining deep consultation and holistic impact assessment, may ironically lead to increased conflict, legal challenges, and ultimately, project delays.
Environmental Protection Sidelined
The explicit shift in the Mining Act’s purpose towards prioritizing economic considerations, combined with measures to fast-track permitting, signals a de-prioritization of comprehensive environmental protections. These changes could lead to projects being fast-tracked without thorough assessment of their cumulative impacts on ecosystems or a genuine appreciation for Indigenous holistic perspectives on environmental stewardship. Mining is an inherently disruptive industrial activity with a significant environmental footprint. Reducing environmental safeguards and shortening timelines for approval increases the likelihood of insufficient mitigation measures, long-term environmental liabilities, and irreversible damage to natural landscapes and resources. A narrow, Western-centric view of “effects,” focused on immediate, measurable impacts, risks ignoring broader cultural, spiritual, and ecological interconnectedness, thereby failing to uphold a precautionary approach that respects Indigenous knowledge.
Erosion of Accountability and Transparency
A deeply concerning aspect of Bill 5 is the significant erosion of accountability and transparency. The new ministerial powers are being proposed without clear, minimum standards for ensuring procedural fairness or meaningful public oversight. The ability to suspend the MLAS system limits public transparency of mining claims.
Perhaps most strikingly, a new Section 185.1 aims to extinguish various causes of action against the Crown, any current or former member of the Executive Council, or employees, officers, or agents of or advisers to the Crown as a direct or indirect result of the enactment of these amendments or anything done or not done in accordance with them.[17] This means no costs, compensation, or damages are generally owing or payable, and no remedy is available in connection with anything referred to in subsection (1).[18] Most proceedings that are directly or indirectly based on or related to these actions are barred.[19] While this does not apply to an application for judicial review or a claim for constitutional remedy,[20] it severely limits other avenues for legal recourse, prioritizing procedural finality over the pursuit of substantive justice for potentially aggrieved parties. This provision (s. 185.1) seeks to shield the government from legal challenges related to decisions that could have profound impacts on rights holders and the environment. Furthermore, these amendments do not constitute expropriation or injurious affection under the law.[21]
Conclusion: A Troubling Trajectory
The proposed changes to Schedule 5 of Bill 5 represent a significant and potentially damaging shift in Ontario’s approach to mining legislation. While the amendments aim to boost economic growth and protect the strategic mineral supply chain, they raise serious questions about the future of environmental protection, the Crown’s commitment to Indigenous rights and reconciliation, and the fundamental principles of regulatory oversight, substantive justice, and government accountability. The emphasis on procedural speed risks obscuring underlying power imbalances and systemic biases, potentially leading to outcomes that are efficient for some but deeply unjust for others. The language of “unleashing our economy” must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it does not mean unleashing irreversible harm to Ontario’s environment and its relationships with Indigenous peoples, nor a system where due process is sacrificed for economic expediency. Stakeholders and the public must remain vigilant and engage critically as these far-reaching changes move forward.
————-
[1] Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 1st Sess, 44th Leg, Ontario, 2025 [Bill 5](referred to Standing Committee on the Interior after second reading 6 May 2025, under consideration by committee as of 22 May 2025).
[2] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 2.
[3] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 3, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 4.1(8).
[4] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 3, amending the Mining Act by adding s.4.1(10) and s.4.1(11).
[5] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 3, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 4.1(14).
[6] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 4, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 26.1(1), paras 1-4.
[7] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 4, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 26.1(5).
[8] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 6, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 81(1).1.
[9] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 9, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 176.1(1).
[10] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 9, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 176.1(6).
[11] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 9, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 176.1(2) 1-3.
[12] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 7, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 153.0.1(1).
[13] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 7, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 153.0.1(4).
[14] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 7, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 153.0.1(6)(a).
[15] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 7, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 153.0.1(7).
[16] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 7, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 153.0.1(5).
[17] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 10, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 185.1(1).
[18] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 10, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 185.1(3).
[19] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 10, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 185.1(4).
[20] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 10, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 185.1(5).
[21] Ibid, Sch 5 cl 10, amending the Mining Act by adding s. 185.1(7).