Ontario’s Bill 5: How Much ‘Red Tape’ Should Be Removed?

Monday, September 22, 2025

‘The broader scope means it could happen anywhere.’

By Emily Mckinlay

Ontario’s Bill 5, also named the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, recently received Royal Assent. While the intent of the bill is to fast-track economically beneficial development projects, many farmers are concerned that the broad scope of the bill could threaten Ontario farmland.

What is Bill 5?

The history of Bill 5 traces back to April 2025, when Premier Doug Ford and Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce introduced it to the Ontario Legislature. The government’s stated intention was to reduce regulatory barriers and streamline approvals for major infrastructure, mining, and resource development projects across the province.

Martin Straathof, executive director of Ontario Farmland Trust, says that the goal of resilience is largely a response to the tariff threats by the U.S. government.

“Bill 5 is an omnibus bill with a number of different changes and or new acts proposed,” says Straathof.

“It is interesting to see the timing of this bill and how it aligns with the fear of what is taking place in the U.S. with tariffs. Given these fears, this bill is framed as an opportunity for Ontario to protect its economy and become more resilient.”

This bill would allow the Province to create ‘Special Economic Zones’ (SEZ) in areas of interest for development. In these zones, the bill would bring changes to the current acts governing land-use planning, the enforcement of municipal by-laws, and the protection of endangered species and their habitats, along with several other regulations.

“While it’s okay to remove some red tape, we want to make sure proper process is followed and regulations are upheld and that development is moving forward in an appropriate way,” states Drew Spoelstra, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The Ontario government has put an emphasis on mining, energy, and infrastructure-related projects as the target for these SEZs, particularly in Northern Ontario – but the implications are not limited to any region.

“I think a lot of SEZs right now are focused on the North and mining areas,” says Spoelstra.

“One zone that I’m aware of in Southwestern Ontario that will impact agricultural land is a landfill in Dresden. We recognize that we create waste, and that waste needs a place to go, but we want to make sure we are taking the most sustainable path forward to contain this waste. Expanding onto farmland isn’t that route.”

These SEZ developments can offer benefits to their local communities as well as the broader provincial population, but critics say the bill does not recognize agriculture as a significant economic driver in Ontario.

Concerns

Agriculture organizations across the province are paying close attention to Bill 5.

“The land-use piece is one of the biggest aspects we are keeping an eye on, and we may have concerns with that in the future,” says Spoelstra.

“The broader scope of the bill means it could happen anywhere at any time in the province. We want to remain a strong voice for agricultural land-use and want to make sure agricultural impact assessments are done and the correct process is followed.”

Spoelstra says he believes there is value in these SEZs, but says agriculture should also be recognized.

“In these SEZs, there are good opportunities in moving these projects forward, but I think we should also see farmland as an SEZ of its own.

“With the right protections in place, we can continue to grow this industry and expand on the $50 billion it currently contributes to the GDP, and that starts with making sure that farmland is available and protected for ag production. We would like to see an SEZ where agriculture is identified as a leader in that area.”

Straathof adds his concerns that this bill will take away from the current protections in place for agriculture.

“If we are applying methods of fast-tracking economic development projects, we are jeopardizing the health and wellbeing of our communities and our ag sector,” says Straathof.

“Sometimes it feels like agriculture is left out of conversations as an important economic driver, even when the sector contributes $50 billion to the GDP and employs nearly one in 10 people in the province. A bill like this can completely override the land-use planning policies we have in place, protecting that economic driver.”

Straathof also points out that these policies were initially a response to a lack of regulation that resulted in damage to the land.

“The whole reason conservation authorities were created in the ’40s was due to the poor land-use planning and stewardship that led to severe droughts in the ’30s, which impacted the ag sector significantly,” explains Straathof.

“Conservation authorities came in to help create some environmental stability that the agriculture sector really relies on to have sustainable farms. We need these organizations, processes, and regulations to ensure that we are protecting habitats for species at risk. Changing that threatens the biodiversity and health of ecosystems that are important for community health and wellbeing, as well as the ag sector.”

Another point of concern on Bill 5 is the movement away from science-based protections for ecosystems.

“It is also important to note that the changes from the Endangered Species Act to the Species Conservation Act really undermine the authority of the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), which is the scientific body that identifies species on the list for concern of endangerment,” says Straathof.

“Now, that power is given to political decision-makers, and these protections are no longer data-driven, but rely on political decision-making for whether species end up on that list.”

The OFA provided a written submission to the Ontario Standing Committee on the Interior regarding Bill 5, stating that “OFA supports evidence-based, balanced environmental legislation that protects species at risk while allowing sustainable farming. OFA is concerned the proposed changes weaken protections, introduce legal uncertainty, and prioritize efficiency over conservation.”

OFA’s Spoelstra also highlights concerns within the SEZ Act within the bill, which would allow ‘trusted proponents’ to become exempt from some of the current requirements of development.

“Some aspects of this make sense – to move forward quickly and efficiently with projects – and no one appreciates that sentiment more than farmers. However, we need to ensure that there is a competitive bidding process and appropriate checks and balances throughout their development where everyone is engaged,” explains Spoelstra.

“Farm businesses are the cornerstone of the rural economy and it’s important that the government prioritizes them in the decision-making process.”

The overarching challenge with Bill 5 is the removal of public oversight and the limitation of the current science and data-based decision-making process.

“Really, this bill can be used for anything, and that is up to the discretion of policy makers,” says Straathof.

“The idea is that cabinet can gain these powers with minimal public oversight, and minimal transparency and public input. It can be applied anywhere at any time.”

What’s next?

While there may still be small adjustments to specific regulations within the bill, overall, Bill 5 is now largely in place and is law. There are some changes that much of the agricultural community would like to see in this bill to protect the province.

“I think the one change we’d like to see is to focus these SEZs on areas like mining extraction and major infrastructure,” says Spoelstra.

“We would also like to see the piece about ‘trusted proponents’ changed. We want to make sure that we have a competitive and fair process in project development. We should be making sure that environmental standards are upheld, and robust processes remain in place, including community input and ensure that the bill considers local landscape, natural hazards, and agricultural impact as well.”

Straathof would like to see science-based environmental protections reinstated and the exclusion of agricultural land from development.

“There really should be explicit prohibition of SEZs in prime agricultural areas under the planning statement. It is also critical to do environmental and agricultural impact assessments,” says Straathof.

“Requiring those types of activities is one step of due diligence of acting sustainably in land-use and land stewardship. Maintaining those protocols and following through on how to mitigate those impacts is the whole purpose.”

Ontario farmers have a strong voice when it comes to advocating for the protection of agricultural land. Producers with concerns can discuss them with their MPPs.

“I am hoping there is still an opportunity for input while developing regulations or the framework on how they select or identify SEZs,” says Straathof.

“With more voices at the table, more advocacy takes place. Lending voices of support can really go a long way.”

Spoelstra adds, “If you have concerns about what might go on moving forward, such as an issue with the Dresden landfill site, the best route forward is to talk to your local MPPs and get engaged with your local federation as well. Different federations around the province are communicating with different representatives to try to make changes or tweak some of the processes that have been undertaken.”

Straathof emphasizes the importance of these regulations in the long-term sustainability of agriculture.

“These decisions aren’t just decisions in the here-and-now, but also for generations to come. We need safeguards in place to assess and make informed decisions.

“I’m not saying that development can’t or shouldn’t happen – just that assessments need to be done thoughtfully to avoid negative impacts down the road.” BF

SIDEBAR#1:

SIDEBAR: A BILL 5 BACKGROUNDER

After introduction earlier this year, Bill 5 proceeded rapidly through the legislative process. It underwent committee hearings and prompted public and political debate.

Opposition came from multiple directions, including First Nations leaders, environmental advocates, and all opposition parties, who cited concerns that the law would undermine environmental protections, Indigenous rights, local municipal oversight, and contributions to democratic processes.

The Progressive Conservative majority ensured swift passage, however, and the bill moved from introduction to final passage in just 49 days, receiving third reading on June 4 and Royal Assent from the Lieutenant Governor on June 5.

The Act amends, enacts, and repeals a range of Ontario statutes. Key changes include:

• Scrapping the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and replacing it with the less stringent Species Conservation Act, 2025.
• Creating Special Economic Zones where the provincial government can exempt designated projects from most provincial laws, regulations, and municipal bylaws without legislative input.
• Streamlining and relaxing approval processes under the Mining Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Electricity Act, and others.

Throughout its trajectory, Bill 5 attracted criticism for concentrating decision-making power in the hands of the provincial government, limiting requirements for consultation with First Nations, and weakening environmental protections.

After backlash during committee, the government added an amendment recognizing the constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples, though some leaders felt this was inadequate and continued to vow opposition, including legal challenges and protests.

Bill 5 became law on June 5. Its provisions are expected to influence Ontario’s approach to economic development, Indigenous relations, and environmental stewardship for years to come. BF

SIDEBAR#2:

OFA SUBMISSION REGARDING BILL 5

OFA provided a written submission to the Ontario Standing Committee on the Interior regarding Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025.large building being constructed

OFA comments related to schedules 2, 9 and 10 of the Bill.

OFA urged the Ontario government to retain strong, science-driven species protections, and to ensure any reforms respect both ecological integrity and farming activities. “OFA remains committed to supporting fair, transparent planning that fosters a sustainable agri-food system in Ontario.”

Schedule 2 (Endangered Species Act) & Schedule 10 (Species Conservation Act, 2025):

OFA supports evidence-based, balanced environmental legislation that protects species at risk while allowing sustainable farming. OFA is concerned the proposed changes weaken protections, introduce legal uncertainty, and prioritize efficiency over conservation. Key recommendations include:

• Defining habitat based on science and excluding active farmland unless ecologically necessary.
• Limiting ministerial discretion to delay species listings.
• Maintaining COSSARO’s independence with agriculture-relevant expertise.
• Opposing habitat offsetting via the Species at Risk Conservation Trust due to lack of governance clarity.

Schedule 9 (Special Economic Zones Act, 2025):

OFA is concerned SEZA’s broad powers could override vital protections for farmland and agricultural systems. Recommendations include:

• Limiting SEZA to nation-building or critical resource projects.
• Prohibiting zones that negatively impact agriculture.
• Requiring Agricultural Impact Assessments for zones affecting farmland.
• Removing “trusted proponent” status to ensure fairness and accountability. BF