Protecting Polluters, Unleashing a Deregulated Environment
Swim Drink Fish’s Response to Bill 5: Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act
Ontario is a place of extraordinary natural beauty. Home to more than a quarter of a million lakes, iconic forests, rare species, and some of the most biologically rich watersheds in Canada. The province contains one-fifth of the world’s freshwater, which provides critical habitat for the over 200 species recognized as at risk. Perhaps it is this abundance—Ontario’s vast and seemingly limitless natural expanse—that has led to natural assets being treated as a low political priority throughout much of the province’s history.
Paddler on Lake Ontario, Swim Drink Fish
Despite a history of neglect, in recent decades, thanks to strong public advocacy, scientific advances, and grassroots participation, the people of Ontario have made globally significant environmental gains: We closed the coal plants, established an Environmental Bill of Rights, and created environmental assessment regimes and species protections that made the province a leader in conservation. Because nearly 90% of the province is publicly controlled “Crown Land”, all of these advances required cooperation from Queen’s Park.
For over 20 years, Swim Drink Fish has been working with governments and people across Ontario to ensure lasting environmental protection. Our work has focused on key indicators of a healthy environment: access to swimmable, drinkable, fishable water for all.
But with the introduction of Bill 5, the "Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act," we are entering uncharted waters. This legislation does not merely revise environmental laws—it rewrites their purpose, undermines the rule of law, and signals a dangerous shift toward deregulation that threatens the hard-fought gains of the past.
The government's rationale behind these new measures is to remove “red tape”, inject “common sense”, and provide clarity for economic development. But clarity without justice is meaningless.
Bill 5 guts foundational environmental legislation. It amends the Mining Act, 1990, Environmental Protection Act, 1990, Environmental Assessment Act, 1990, and Heritage Act, 1990, and threatens to eliminate the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).
Mining Act Changes
Tailings Pond in Sudbury, Ontario by CBC
The proposed changes to the Mining Act encourage mineral development, while minimizing obligations to assess or mitigate harms. Permits will be easier to obtain with less public notice and consultation required.
Perhaps most troubling, the Act grants broad immunity to decision-makers from legal liability for environmental damages. This is especially reckless given Ontario’s track record of loose regulation regarding mine site remediation. Under the current legislation, hundreds of high-risk abandoned mines are scattered across both public and private land with no viable plan for remediation. With the proposed changes to the Mining Act, rather than addressing these toxic legacy mines, the province is opening the floodgates to new and unassessed development, without a safety net or plan to clean up the existing mess.
If this wasn't bad enough, Bill 5 is also closing the courts for anyone impacted by unchecked mine development. This will further reduce the public’s recourse and power, shielding the government from “various causes of action connected to the amendments” and reducing accountability to the public.
Economics Over Endangerment
Ontario’s 2007 Endangered Species Act (ESA) was once considered the gold standard for provincial protection laws in Canada. Once a science-based law aimed at recovery, the ESA is becoming a tool to facilitate development based on economic and political concerns, rather than a foundation of species protection. The erosion of these protections has been ongoing for several years. Previous acts put through by the Ford government created major loopholes in the Endangered Species Act by implementing the notorious “pay to slay” fund and limiting the power of conservation authorities. Bill 5 attempts to further this process of selling out Ontario’s wildlife, opting to replace the ESA with the Species Conservation Act. This new legislation eliminates the need to develop recovery plans for species at risk, “a developer’s dream and an environmental nightmare.”
Bill 5 also grants the provincial government the ability to create “special economic zones” for chosen projects anywhere in the province, which would bypass provincial environmental protections and the municipal government's authority. To date, the government has not divulged its process for establishing special economic zones.
Environmental Assessment opposed to common sense?
Despite the government’s rhetoric surrounding Bill 5, Environmental Assessments (EAs) are not bureaucratic “red tape,” they are a necessary check on development projects. EAs give the public and affected communities a voice, provide a forum to vet data, and ensure long-term consequences are considered before it’s too late. Bill 5’s changes to the Environmental Assessment Act narrow EA requirements so drastically that many projects could move ahead with no oversight, under the guise of protecting Ontario’s economy from tariffs implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump. However, the consequences of these environmental decisions could long outlast political infighting.
As the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) notes, many of the projects exempted under Bill 5 from provincial EA will not trigger review under the Federal Impact Assessment Act, 2019. The purpose of the public process isn’t to stop projects—it’s to improve them and ensure that sustainability is given a chance.
Ignoring our Shared Responsibilities
Despite recent cross-border tensions, Ontario’s water, air, and biodiversity are not contained by political borders, nor should their protection be based on political posturing. As nations, communities and individuals, we all have a shared responsibility to safeguard the lands and waters we call home.
Even during historic international tensions, opposing governments can work towards shared goals and responsibilities. For example, despite mounting political tension between Canada and the U.S in the 1970s, political leaders came together to sign The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; a bipartisan, cross-border recognition of our shared responsibility to the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. Rather than destroy the environment in the name of economic independence, these Nations chose to work towards mutual benefit. The International Joint Commission, created from the agreement, laid the groundwork for collaborative, science-based environmental governance that continues today.
Bill 5 turns its back on this legacy. It centralizes power, silences public input, and sidelines Indigenous Nations, whose cultural heritage, legal rights, and ecological knowledge are being ignored by the Bill. Not considering Indigenous values and jurisdictions is not only a betrayal of reconciliation, but also a failure of environmental governance.
As stated by Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek Nation Linda Debassige “Our lands and resources are not for the province to sell, exploit, or regulate away as economic corridors, especially without our consent.”. Biinaagami reminds all of us that our waters are a shared responsibility, and that no one political party can or should decide its fate.
Biinaagami Giant Floor Map by Scott Parent
The Path Ahead
Like all environmental issues, opposition to Bill 5 is about more than just protecting the environment from degradation. It is also about ensuring that the public has a voice and a seat at the table for discussions concerning the lands and waters they call home. We all have a shared responsibility to steward these resources, not only for us, but also for generations to come.
At Swim Drink Fish, we cannot let the narrative that environmental protections are obstacles go unchallenged. They are, in fact, the foundation of a healthy society, economy, and democracy. A society where everyone can swim, drink, and fish from their shared water is a healthy and wealthy community.
Even in times of political polarization, or perhaps especially then, we must remember that these are shared waters, shared species, and shared futures. And that means building systems based not only on trust in government, but on transparency, science, equity, and the rule of law.
Now is the time to stand for those principles. Bill 5 is not “common-sense.” It is ecological amnesia, and we cannot afford to forget the lessons learned over decades of struggle.
To stand up to Bill 5, concerned community members can sign Ecojustice’s poll, follow Environmental Defence’s Stop Bill 5 Campaign, or submit a comment through the government portal before May 26th, 2025.
