 |
| Nick Leeson |
 |
| Patrick McCaugherty |
 |
| Susan Fridlyand |
 |
| Christa Croos |
(i) enacting the highly politicized Special Economic Zones Act (SEZA);
(ii) weakening the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and
(iii) introducing the Species Conservation Act (SCA) — an even more watered-down species protection legislation — which will eventually replace the ESA.
(ii) weakening the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and
(iii) introducing the Species Conservation Act (SCA) — an even more watered-down species protection legislation — which will eventually replace the ESA.
The Ford government’s claims that these changes will boost economic growth and accelerate development by cutting red tape are speculative, including development in high-conflict regions like the Ring of Fire. However, what is clear is that Bill 5 undermines Indigenous rights; largely does away with environmental and species protection; and provides the Ontario government with anti-democratic discretionary authorities.
Special economic zones: Exemptions and carving out consultation
The SEZA lets the Ontario government designate priority areas or “trusted” projects or developers to bypass requirements under laws, regulations and other instruments (e.g., permits and licences). This means projects can be exempt from oversight based on political discretion, not science or public interest.
Although the government claims that the duty to consult Indigenous communities will be upheld, SEZA’s very design makes meaningful consultation nearly impossible. By removing the mechanisms that trigger consultation — like permits and approvals — SEZA effectively erases opportunities for Indigenous voices to be heard and for protective terms or conditions intended to mitigate impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ rights to be required.
The government has since proposed a subset of these zones — “Indigenous-led special economic zones” — though no statutory framework or meaningful governance authority has been defined. In a further act of constitutional
Rainer L: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Species Conservation Act: Degrading environmental baselines
Bill 5 dismantles Ontario’s existing (and already lacking) endangered species protections. Amendments to the ESA, and eventual replacement of the ESA with the SCA, transforms the regime from one intended to protect and recover species based on scientific evidence to one of highly political discretion limited to protection and conservation. These changes come at a time when many species are already in decline.
Key changes to the ESA include:
- It is no longer necessary to list a species at risk even where the scientific assessment identifies it as such.
- Habitat protection is narrowed to limited geographic areas, which fail to reflect what many species need to ensure their survival and/or recovery.
- The precautionary principle is removed.
- It no longer affords protection for “harassment” of listed species.
The SCA, which appears to be an even more watered-down analogue of the ESA, will come into force once its regulations are complete. In its current form, it will further erode regulatory oversight by allowing activities that may harm species at risk and their habitats, which traditionally required permits and therefore clearly triggered Ontario’s duty to consult and accommodate, to move forward simply by way of registration. To “cut red tape,” this legislation threatens to chill consultation and exacerbate the cumulative impacts of development on species at risk.
A dangerous precedent: Dismantling protections under cover of urgency
Bill 5 marks a dramatic departure from evidence-based, participatory governance. It obstructs the duty to consult and accommodate and breaks from Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It replaces structured, accountable regulatory frameworks with sweeping and opaque discretionary authority.
What makes Bill 5 especially alarming is not only its content, but also its framing: presented as a response to geopolitical uncertainty and economic urgency, its measures are, in fact, permanent structural changes that dismantle long-standing environmental and rights-based safeguards under the guise of resilience. Cloaked in the framing of “resilience” and responding to economic threats, the province is embedding unchecked executive discretion into law — eliminating procedural protections not just for now, but for the future. This approach undermines constitutional obligations, weakens the rule of law, and invites long-term legal and ecological instability.
A broader shift: Speed substituted for rights and regulation
Most unfortunately, Bill 5 is not an anomaly unique to Ontario. It is part of a wider movement in Canada toward deregulated development framed as economic resilience. From Ontario to British Columbia, governments are enacting laws that concentrate discretion in the executive, reduce environmental oversight and weaken the procedural obligations that give Indigenous rights meaning. Proposals like Mark Carney’s “Major Projects Office” and federal-provincial commitments to “one project, one review” underscore a growing consensus: speed is the new priority, even when it comes at the expense of constitutional duties.
Within this trend, Ontario’s “Indigenous-led special economic zones” offer the appearance of inclusion, but little in the way of jurisdiction, governance or lasting authority. They risk substituting consent with consultation after the fact, and governance with equity participation. The province’s decision to delay designating the Ring of Fire as a special economic zone in response to public backlash does not undo the sweeping authority Bill 5 confers to bypass laws across Ontario.
In effect, Bill 5 helps normalize a policy of legalized lawlessness — using law not to protect rights, but to sidestep them. The more discretion is concentrated, and the more procedural checks are removed, the easier it becomes to criminalize dissent. This is not the path to reconciliation. Rights are not red tape. They are the framework of a lawful and legitimate democracy.
What Bill 5 really unleashes
Ontario’s pitch that Bill 5 will “protect” the province by “unleashing the economy” is misleading. What it actually unleashes is unchecked development, weakened protections and constitutional conflict. We’ve seen this movie before. The ending is always the same: short-term economic headlines, long-term ecological collapse and a reckoning in court.
If Ontario is serious about building a resilient, inclusive economy, it must ground that effort in respect for Indigenous rights, environmental stewardship and democratic accountability — not bulldoze through them in the name of progress.
Nick Leeson is senior counsel with Woodward LLP. His practice is based out of British Columbia, where he practises law for Woodward across Canada, representing Indigenous clients and interests from coast-to-coast-to-coast.
Patrick McCaugherty is an associate with Woodward LLP. His practice is based out of Ontario, where he practises law for Indigenous clients throughout the province.
Susan Fridlyand is an associate with Woodward LLP. Her practice is based out of British Columbia, where she practises law for Indigenous clients across Canada.
Christa Croos is an associate for Woodward LLP. Her practice is based out of Ontario, where she represents clients in the Northwest Territories and in Ontario on matters related to lands, governance and natural resources.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.