Introduction
The Government of Ontario’s Bill 5, “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025”[1] is an omnibus bill that will amend or repeal several pieces of legislation. For the purpose of this
post, we will briefly highlight some of the more concerning components of Bill 5 within the following areas of focus; Special Economic Zones (SEZs), the Ontario Mining Act Amendments (the Mining Act), Ontario Heritage Act (the Heritage Act) changes and the replacement of the Endangered Species Act (the ESA) with the Species Conservation Act (the SCA).
The stated purpose of this omnibus bill is to protect Ontario’s economy by streamlining development and expediting the permitting processes for mining and for infrastructure development projects that are deemed critical to protecting the mineral supply chain within the global economy.
The legislative strategy of omnibus bills to enact widespread changes is itself a point of concern. Such bills, which bundle numerous, often unrelated, legislative amendments into a single piece of legislation, can obscure the full impact of the proposed changes and limit important debate and scrutiny of individual components.[2] The Ontario government has utilized this approach in recent years to diminish or repeal important laws safeguarding the environment and public health and safety.[3] This pattern suggests a deliberate tactic to expediate a deregulatory agenda, while potentially limiting democratic oversight and public participation.
The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Disregard
Bill 5 does not exist in a vacuum. It emerges against a backdrop of heightened awareness and advocacy regarding the imperative to respect Indigenous rights, including inherent and Treaty rights, and to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada has enacted Federal legislation, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA), committing to align its laws with UNDRIP. First Nations have consistently advocated for full implementation on UNDRIP principles including the right to self-determination, protection of their lands, territories and resources and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for any activities affecting them. Legal experts, Indigenous leaders, environmental organizations and concerned citizens have been loudly raising the alarm that several provisions of Bill 5 directly challenge these principles by granting the government the power to bypass genuine consultation and disregard the need for consent.
The Ontario government has frequently cited the need to mitigate the impacts of international tariff disputes and to bolster economic development as primary justification for Bill 5.[4] While economic resilience is of vital importance, it could also be argued that these pressures are being leveraged as a pretext to dismantle essential environmental protections and to marginalize Indigenous rights which are often characterized as mere “red tape” rather than fundamental rights and safeguards. This framing perpetuates a false dichotomy between economic prosperity and environmental or rights-based protections, a narrative which has been widely discredited.[5]
Concerns similar to those surrounding Bill 5 have arisen in other jurisdictions. For example, in British Columbia, Bill 15—the Infrastructure Projects Act, 2025—faced significant opposition for granting broad powers to the provincial cabinet to expedite projects, potentially overriding First Nations’ jurisdiction, environmental assessment procedures, and legal due process. This parallel indicates a troubling trend where provincial governments, under the guise of economic expediency, seek to centralize authority and limit public and Indigenous participation in decision-making processes with significant and lasting impacts.
The unilateral imposition of such legislation without genuine partnership and consent from First Nations, inevitably erodes trust and undermines reconciliation. Indigenous leaders have characterized the lack of meaningful consultation on Bill 5 as a “serious breach of trust” that is likely to foster “conflict and uncertainty” and as a “direct assault on the foundations of respectful partnership and shared decision making”.[6] This approach stands in stark contrast to calls for nation-to-nation dialogue and partnership in development processes and risks significant setbacks in the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples, potentially leading to increased legal challenges and ironically, project delays.
Over the next coming weeks, we will examine the more alarming components of Bill 5, looking at specific changes and their far-reaching implications for Indigenous rights and the environment. This will be the first in a series that will also delve into similar pressing legislative matters and their impacts in Quebec and British Columbia. This will underscore the urgent need for the Ontario government to reverse course and to genuinely respect Indigenous rights and to uphold its responsibilities to the environment.
——
[1] Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 1st session, 44th Leg, Ontario 2025.
[2] Centre for Constitutional Studies, The Omnibus Budget Implementation Bill: Balancing Democratic Accountability with Legislative Efficiency, online: <The Omnibus Budget Implementation Bill: Balancing Democratic Accountability with Legislative Efficiency – Centre for Constitutional Studies>.
[3] Canadian Environmental Law Association, Blog: Ontario Bill 5 Attacks Environmental Law and the Rule of Law (May 12, 2025), online: Blog: Ontario Bill 5 Attacks Environmental Law and the Rule of Law – Canadian Environmental Law Association [CELA].
[4] CELA supra note 3.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Anishnawbe Business Professional Association, “Ontario Bill 5: A Threat to First Nations Rights, Economic Reconciliation, and Sustainable Prosperity”, Windspeaker.com (9 May 2025), online: <Ontario Bill 5: A threat to First Nations rights, economic reconciliation, and sustainable prosperity – Windspeaker.com>.