ROBINSON-HURON TREATY TERRITORY—From the so-called ‘Ring of Fire’ in Treaty 9 Omushkego territory in the James Bay lowlands , to the Robinson-Huron Treaty Territory, the Ford government’s Bill 5 has landed like a bulldozer on sacred soil, eliciting vigorous objections from First Nations leadership across the province.
Anishinaabek Nation Grand Chief Linda Debassige, former chief of M’Chigeeng First Nation released an official statement saying: “As the original and rightful caretakers of these lands, waters, and resources, the Anishinabek have never surrendered or ceded title to Ontario or any colonial entity. Our inherent jurisdiction flows from our continuous occupation, our traditional governance systems, and the sacred natural laws given to us by the Creator—long before the existence of Canada or any assertion of Crown sovereignty. These rights are not only pre-existing; they are recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
Bill 5, the ‘Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act,’ was tabled just ahead of the Easter long weekend. Framed as a tool to fast-track energy, infrastructure, and mineral development, the bill proposes major changes to Ontario’s environmental, Indigenous and planning laws.
The legislation would reduce oversight for projects deemed strategically important, amending or removing existing protections for endangered species, natural heritage and constitutionally recognized Indigenous rights. It would also allow the cabinet to designate Special Economic Zones where select projects could be exempt from both provincial and municipal regulations.
The Ford government has positioned the bill as a response to global instability, citing economic uncertainty tied to US trade relations. However, environmental and legal experts suggest the bill fits a longer trend of regulatory rollbacks, pointing to similar actions taken since 2018.
Public comment on the legislation was open via the Environmental Registry of Ontario until May 17, Bill 5 has cleared second reading and is now headed to the Committee of the Interior, with just two days scheduled for public hearings—May 22 and May 26.
The Ford government pitched Bill 5 as necessary to developing natural resources in Ontario in response to the threats posed to the province by US President Donald Trump and his tariffs.
“President Trump wants to destroy our economy, take jobs away from Ontarians and Canadians, and we have to get up and fight like we’ve never fought before,” Premier Doug Ford said in April. “We can’t be caught up in red tape and regulations and dilly-dallying around.”
In a written statement the province said the bill is focused on creating conditions to allow businesses to confidently invest in Ontario.
“In the face of growing global economic uncertainty and ongoing US tariffs, Ontario must remain competitive in attracting and securing job-creating investments,” the statement said.
Other non-partisan conservation groups, such as the Manitoulin Nature Club and Manitoulin Streams, are vocally opposed to the bill.
“The proposed changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species Act and the creation of the new Species Conservation Act represent a sweeping rollback of critical protections for biodiversity and ecosystems,” says Liam Campbell, environmental technologist for Manitoulin Streams.
“By prioritizing deregulation and economic expediency over science and ecological stewardship, the government is undermining species recovery, narrowing habitat protections, and shifting from proactive oversight to a reactive, compliance-based model,” Mr. Campbell continued. “Giving politicians discretion over species listings, removing mandatory recovery planning, and dismantling accountability mechanisms like the Species at Risk Conservation Fund all point to a system increasingly driven by industry convenience rather than conservation. These reforms threaten the long-term health of Ontario’s natural heritage and ignore the foundational role a healthy environment plays in economic and human well-being.”
Key Aspects of Bill 5
Introduced through an omnibus approach.
Proposes wide-ranging changes across multiple sectors in a single piece of legislation.
Reduces environmental oversight.
Shifts from proactive review to post-activity compliance for many project types.
Weakens endangered species protections.
Changes include eliminating mandatory recovery planning and narrowing the legal definition of “habitat.”
Grants cabinet power to create Special Economic Zones
Allows exemptions from environmental and planning rules for selected projects without legislative debate.
Introduces political discretion in environmental decision-making. Permits elected officials to override science-based assessments related to species protection.
Raises questions around treaty obligations and Indigenous consent.
Some First Nations argue the bill infringes on their inherent and treaty rights.
Provides limited detail on implementation.
Leaves open how, where, and under what conditions Special Economic Zones would be established.
Continues a pattern of deregulation. Environmental groups note the bill follows a broader legislative trend to reduce provincial oversight in land and resource management.
Indigenous Rights and Resistance
Chiefs Donny Morris of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin of Attawapiskat First Nation and Chief June Black of Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, said in a news release last month they will challenge Bill 5 if it’s passed.
The three First Nations are among ten in the Treaty 9 territory who are already taking Ontario and Canadian governments to court in a different issue but for the same cause, in a lawsuit their lead lawyer says could fundamentally change the way resource and land management decisions are made in the Treaty 9 area.
“This is a frontal attack, a direct head-on attack against the worst aspect of colonialism, which is subjugation — the idea that one government can just walk in and take over the government [and] the people who were here,” said lawyer Kate Kempton, head representative for the claimants, in an interview with CBC News back in 2023.
Speaking to the issue at hand — Bill 5, which is a continuation of attempts to legislate away Indigenous title — Ms. Kempton said, “The tariffs are just an excuse to rampantly run over the environment in First Nations to get a bunch of money into the coffers of the provincial government.”
Environmental and Archaeological Concerns
Bill 5 introduces sweeping changes to Ontario’s environmental oversight framework, with particular implications for species-at-risk protections. Under the proposed legislation, the current permitting system—grounded in scientific assessment—is replaced by a registration-first model, allowing development to begin immediately with minimal oversight.
Critics argue this approach sidelines evidence-based conservation in favour of political discretion, enabling delays or denials in listing vulnerable species and narrowing legal definitions of habitat. Developers would no longer be required to consider alternatives or make plans public before beginning work. Environmental organizations have raised concerns about the long-term consequences, warning of irreversible ecological degradation under a model that prioritizes expedience. In the case of the York1 Dresden Dump, for instance, the project’s previously mandated environmental review could be retroactively nullified under Bill 5.
If these measures are being justified as a response to international trade tensions, observers question what recourse remains if those tensions ease—unprotected ecosystems cannot be legislated back into existence.
Local and Regional Implications
Schedule 9 of Bill 5 grants Cabinet broad authority to designate Special Economic Zones (SEZs), without requiring the disclosure of rationale, criteria, or intended outcomes. The legislation does not mandate a stated purpose for SEZ designations, meaning municipalities or regions could be selected without public justification.
Within designated SEZs, certain legal and regulatory requirements—potentially including environmental, health, and safety protections—may be suspended to accelerate development. The bill also allows Cabinet to identify specific individuals or corporations as “trusted proponents,” who could be exempt from various provincial and municipal regulations, including those related to zoning, housing, environmental oversight and Indigenous rights.
Observers have noted that this level of discretionary authority raises questions regarding transparency, accountability, and the distribution of decision-making power in land use planning.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is reviewing Bill 5 and consulting its members ahead of upcoming Standing Committee hearings. While AMO supports economic development objectives, it has stressed the importance of municipal and Indigenous participation in shaping SEZs.
“For special economic zones to be successful, it’s vital that they are developed in partnership with local communities,” AMO stated. The association noted Minister Lecce’s commitment to environmental protections and to respecting the province’s obligations to Indigenous Peoples.
AMO also emphasized that economic development should be pursued in balance with environmental sustainability and cultural integrity.
Although Bill 5 does not directly grant new expropriation powers, it introduces a regulatory framework that expands the provincial government’s ability to override local planning rules and expedite development. This includes the option to create SEZs where existing land use protections may no longer apply. As a result, property owners and communities could experience diminished opportunities for consultation or appeal in areas affected by these designations.
The legislation does not exempt ecologically or culturally sensitive areas—such as natural habitats, traditional harvesting sites, or sacred lands—from its scope. Stakeholders have expressed concern about potential impacts on northern conservation efforts, existing federal Indigenous conservation initiatives and local governance. Weakened regulatory protections could also pose risks to public health and food security, particularly for communities that depend on land and water resources.
Legal analysts and civil liberties organizations have raised concerns about the concentration of authority in Cabinet, citing limited legislative oversight. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has characterized Schedule 9 as a “Henry VIII-style” clause, referencing the extent of unchecked executive power it introduces.
Key terms in the legislation, including “special economic zone” and “trusted proponent,” remain undefined. The government has stated that definitions will be provided in regulations expected in Fall 2025—after the bill is anticipated to be passed. Critics argue that the use of broad legislative language and delayed regulatory clarity may limit public and media scrutiny during the decision-making process.
Timeline of Ford Government Environmental Rollbacks (2018–2025)
2018 – Cancellation of Cap-and-Trade System.
One of the Ford government’s early actions was the cancellation of Ontario’s cap-and-trade system. This included the province’s withdrawal from joint carbon markets with Quebec and California, as well as the dismantling of Ontario’s climate action plan.
2019 – Bill 108 (“More Homes, More Choice Act”).
This legislation restructured environmental assessment procedures and modified the powers of conservation authorities. Critics argued that the changes placed greater emphasis on development, potentially at the cost of environmental protections for wetlands, wildlife and municipal oversight.
2020 – Expansion of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs).
The use of Minister’s Zoning Orders increased significantly, allowing the provincial government to override local zoning regulations, including those protecting agricultural land and natural heritage sites.
2021 – Schedule 6 of Bill 229.
This section of Bill 229 modified the role of conservation authorities, restricting their ability to comment on development proposals, even in cases where there were concerns about flooding or erosion risks.
2022 – Bill 23 (“More Homes Built Faster Act”).
Bill 23 introduced several changes, including the removal of development charges and parkland dedication requirements, reduced municipal authority, and altered heritage conservation policies. These changes were seen as limiting municipalities’ ability to fund infrastructure and safeguard greenspace.
2023 – Greenbelt Land Swap.
The government proposed the removal of 7,400 acres of land from the Greenbelt for development. Following significant public opposition and reports from accountability organizations, the decision was reversed, but it contributed to a loss of public trust in the government.
2024 – Streamlining Environmental Assessment Act.
This proposed change would shorten the timelines for environmental assessments and exempt certain large projects from undergoing a full review.
2025 – Bill 5 (“Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act”).
This bill seeks to introduce significant reforms, including changes to endangered species protections, the potential for regulatory exemptions within Special Economic Zones, and the centralization of development decision-making within the provincial Cabinet.
