EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared on The Trillium, a Village Media website devoted to covering provincial politics at Queen’s Park.
Ford government-proposed legislation that would give cabinet ministers broad powers to exempt chosen projects from provincial and local laws has drawn concerted opposition from First Nations, environmental groups, municipalities and concerned citizens.
Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, is scheduled for public hearings at a legislative committee on Thursday and Monday. Ahead of those meetings, the interior committee has received more than 120 written submissions that overwhelmingly oppose the bill.
The legislation would give cabinet the power to designate an area a “special economic zone,” and then exempt selected proponents and projects from requirements under any provincial law or regulation, including bylaws of municipalities and local boards, that would otherwise apply in that zone.
Federal laws, like the Criminal Code, and Charter and treaty rights, cannot be waived, however.
Premier Doug Ford's government has said it would use these powers to enable companies to more quickly access minerals from the resource-rich Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario.
The bill also proposes to speed up approvals for mining projects through a “one-window” approach, ends an environmental assessment for a controversial dump expansion in Dresden, Ont., replaces the Endangered Species Act with legislation that environmental groups argue offers far weaker protections, and empowers cabinet to exempt projects from archaeological assessment requirements.
First Nations’ concerns
Chief Louis Kwissiwa of Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg (NN), also known as Pic Mobert First Nation, wrote to say the government is taking an “aggressive policy direction that appears intent on working around the constitutional protections” of Indigenous rights.
“Our First Nation holds unceded Aboriginal Title to our ancestral lands north of Lake Superior,” he wrote. “While we are not opposed to mining, we insist it must be done right — consistent with our rights, our stewardship responsibilities, and our vision for sustainable, inclusive development.”
He called on the government to obtain free, prior and informed consent of First Nations before declaring a special economic zone where those nations have unceded title.
“NN must be engaged as a rights-holder and decision-maker before any designation affecting our territory is finalized,” he wrote.
Chief Janelle Nahmabin of Aamjiwnaang First Nation echoed this, saying “the world is watching” how Canada responds to U.S.-related concerns and that bypassing First Nations’ rights to speed up projects “does not show respect for the First Peoples here in Canada.”
Nahmabin also raised concerns that Bill 5 exempts projects, like the proposed Dresden landfill expansion, from “rigorous environmental assessments and removes enforceable protections for wetlands, wildlife habitat, and aquifers.”
“As a community that lives every day with the consequences of previous government decisions, that often fell short of environmental and health protections, I remind you that we are the aftermath of what happens when business is placed above the health and wellbeing of people and our shared home,” Nahmabin wrote.
Representatives of Aamjiwnaang First Nation, which is located near Sarnia in what is often referred to as “Chemical Valley,” were at Queen’s Park last fall to call on the government to address the “toxic pollution” it has faced as a result of chemical facilities and refineries in the area.
Williams Treaties First Nations (WTFN) said that while “healthy ecosystems are critical to the exercise of WTFN's Aboriginal and Treaty rights … Bill 5 would further erode these ecosystems.”
In its submission, the First Nation criticized the government’s plan to repeal the Endangered Species Act and replace it with the “deceptively titled Species Conservation Act, 2025 — a significantly weakened and hollowed-out regime that removes core protections.”
Several First Nations have also said they’re looking for adequate consultations on Bill 5 itself.
Grand Chief Joel Abram, with the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, urged the government to “immediately withdraw” the bill or “engage in a comprehensive redrafting process with full First Nations participation.”
The Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council said if the government doesn’t revise the bill to reflect consultation with them, “then we officially and formally oppose Bill 5.”
“This lack of consultation is particularly alarming in the context of our treaty lands. The precedents being set through the legislative changes in Bill 5 could have lasting implications for SNGR,” the submission stated, adding that the bill “reflects a pattern of removing the voice of First Nations from critical decision-making processes.”
Chief R. Donald Maracle of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte supported the call for more consultation in his submission to the committee, saying the bill “would remove many of the most meaningful protections that safeguard our environment, human health, and Indigenous rights.”
Maracle outlined numerous concerns in his submission, including what he said would be a reduction or elimination of protections for “endangered, threatened and special concern species,” which could lead to a decline in species or a loss of biodiversity.
“This is of grave concern to our community as we have hundreds of endangered species living within our territory,” he wrote, adding that many in the community rely on the Bay of Quinte and its water quality for drinking, hunting and consuming fish.
Several First Nations, including Taykwa Tagamou Nation, criticized a provision in the bill that would allow cabinet to exempt projects from archaeological assessments.
“This exposes sacred sites and burial grounds to irreversible harm,” the First Nation wrote in its submission.
Asked whether the government would consult First Nations on the legislation, Rickford said that the duty to consult kicked in when the bill was tabled. He added that the committee studying the legislation will “send signals as to some of the discussion points that we need to develop,” and that this would happen first with “Indigenous business leaders.”
“But frankly, on the ground, I've heard positive feedback about a targeted approach to specific areas in Ontario where there's common goals and common interests in things like legacy infrastructure, which are required to support the kinds of resource projects that Ontario is looking at,” he said, adding that those projects can be roads, energy corridors and broadband infrastructure for northern communities.
“Our discussions with the Indigenous community leaders have been very positive on those points, and I think it bodes well for the kinds of consultation and engagement we’ll have moving forward now that the legislation is tabled,” he said.
Asked how the government was getting First Nations on board with its mining plans, he cited the Ford government’s announcement in its recently tabled budget that it’s expanding eligibility for the Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program to include mining and critical mineral projects, and tripling its funding to $3 billion.
It is also spending $70 million over four years through the Indigenous Participation Fund “to improve capacity for Indigenous communities and organizations in areas of high mineral activity to participate in regulatory processes related to mineral exploration and mine development,” and spending $10 million over three years “to create new scholarship opportunities for First Nations postsecondary students interested in pursuing careers in resource development.”
The ministers were also asked about an analysis by the Wildlands League that found mining claims have increased by 66 per cent since 2022 to more than 40,000 today, covering 850,091 hectares and “equivalent to almost 14 times the size of the City of Toronto.”
Ontario’s free-entry system for mining claims allows companies to stake claims online without consulting First Nations, an issue that has prompted legal challenges from First Nations.
Minister Rickford and Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce noted that despite the thousands of claims, there are only two principal leaseholders in the area. The province is working with them “where there's the opportunity for a mine or two,” Rickford said, “where the market and the geoscience tells us and tells them where to build it.”
The rule of law
Glencore, a Switzerland-based multinational mining company, wrote to the committee expressing broad support of the bill, but expressed concerns about sections that would allow the province to take actions “for the protection of the strategic national mineral supply chain.”
Lecce has said the government would use those powers to protect Ontario’s resources from “hostile foreign actors and regimes.”
Glencore wrote that those powers “would vest the minister with broad and undefined discretionary power to effectively seize property interests without compensation in the interests of the strategic national mineral supply chain.”
“Rule of law and security of tenure are vital elements to the development of any large-scale mining project around the world. One of the reasons that Canada has attracted foreign capital in critical minerals (from companies such as Glencore) despite long permitting timelines, is exactly this: security of tenure and rule of law.”
The company went on to ask the minister to ensure that related regulations are developed in a limited manner.
“We encourage the government to consider these measures carefully and adopt language that will foster investment from good-faith actors like Glencore in Ontario,” it said.
Asked about Glencore’s concern, Lecce did not directly address it, but said the bill was meant to create additional certainty for investors by limiting the time the government can take to make decisions on projects.
“That is a net new innovation that is necessary to create the certainty, to build the investor confidence, to attract the capital, to get these projects done — in partnership with First Nation communities,” he said.
Toronto’s concerns
The City of Toronto also wrote to the committee in opposition to the proposed Special Economic Zones Act (SEZA), which it describes as “sweeping legislative regime that would exempt certain proponents and/or projects from unnamed/unidentified laws in the province, including municipal bylaws.”
“As currently drafted, the SEZA leaves too many questions unanswered,” its submission says. “The legislation has the potential to be overbroad, unclear and vague given that it lacks precision regarding what activities it applies to and how any exercise of government action is connected to the SEZA's purpose (which is notably absent from the Act).”
“Due to the SEZA's overbroad, unclear and vague legislative regime, the SEZA will likely have unintended consequences that may perpetuate delays or challenges to the use of authority under this legislation.”
The city recommends that the province define criteria concerning the special economic zones in the legislation itself, rather than leaving that to as-of-yet unwritten regulations.
It also wrote to the committee with concerns about parts of the bill that would allow cabinet to exempt projects from archaeological assessments, warning it “could undermine the responsible, proactive identification, conservation, and management of significant archaeological resources” and undermine the city’s duty to consult with Indigenous people.
Citizens’ concerns
Many of the written submissions sent to the committee came from engaged citizens, some of whom were encouraged to write in by environmental groups.
In general, they warn about environmental damage, a disregard for Indigenous rights and a violation of democratic processes from the bill.
“Let me be clear: you are gambling with our future, and no one gave you permission. This is not governance. This is vandalism. This is sabotage. And this is something your legacy will choke on,” says one submission signed, “An extremely livid Canadian.”
“Every salamander crushed, every flood that displaces families, every species lost because you thought conservation was ‘in the way’ — that is on you. You have made it crystal clear that you don't give a damn about the people or the planet, and Bill 5 is your proof.”
Another citizen wrote in about the power to waive archaeological assessments, warning that this will lead to an “unfair” system where some developers' projects have the costly assessments waived, while others do not.
“You're going to be swamped by lobbyists begging for exemptions,” warns Amanda Black, an archaeologist.
She also warns that it’s not possible to know where Indigenous burials are until an assessment is conducted, and warns about the consequences of proceeding without one.
“Sooner or later, someone is going to hit human remains and the result will be Indigenous outrage (or worse), political embarrassment, and unnecessary expense,” she wrote, citing the conflicts at Oka, Caledonia and Ipperwash, all of which involved concerns over Indigenous burial sites.
