What to know
- Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association are criticizing Ontario’s proposed Bill 140.
- The organizations say the legislation would weaken protections under the Environmental Bill of Rights.
- Proposed changes could eliminate residents’ rights to appeal certain environmental approvals and request investigations, according to advocates.
- Advocates warn the changes could reduce public oversight and create environmental and public safety risks.
- Both organizations are calling on the provincial government to repeal the bill.
Local advocacy organizations are sounding the alarm over a provincial bill they say could strip Ontarians’ ability to weigh in on environmental protection regulation and open the door to corruption and public safety risks.
The Environmental Defence and Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) are raising concerns about Bill 140, the Building Ontario Faster Act, 2026.
The proposed legislation was introduced by Red Tape Reduction Minister Andrea Khanjin earlier this week and aims to streamline the delivery of infrastructure processes, reduce bureaucracy, and strengthen Ontario’s economic competitiveness. According to the government, the bill would reduce approval times while still maintaining appropriate environmental and safety protections.
However, since it was introduced, the bill was followed with criticism from environmental groups, who say it would not only come at risks for the environment but also reduce community’s ability to influence government decisions.
Richard Lindgren, staff lawyer at CELA, said the association’s main concern over the bill involves Schedule 8, which would amend the Environmental Bill of Rights. This provincial legislation, first implemented in 1993, allows the public to participate in environmental decisions by giving them the right to review, comment, and request investigations over provincial environmental laws and policies.
However, if Bill 140 is implemented, Lindgren said several of these legal rights granted by the Environmental Bill of Rights would be stripped, leaving the public with less control over environmental policies in the province.
“The Environmental Bill of Rights is really a bedrock environmental law here in Ontario. A lot of people depend on it and have used it successfully to protect the environment, but for no apparent reason, the current government is proposing to take out many or most of the strongest and most important provisions in the EBR,” he told Now Toronto.
“If Bill 140 is enacted, the EBR will be left with a nice sounding title, ‘Environmental Bill Rights,’ but really no substantive content, no legal rights that people can really use.”
According to the lawyer, current provisions allow the public to review development proposals approved by the government posted on the Environment Registry of Ontario (ERO), and submit feedback if they have concerns. Residents are also allowed to appeal approvals granted by the Ministry of the Environment to the Ontario Land Tribunal if they believe the project could be harmful to the environment. Appeals would go through the tribunal as well as specialized third-party reviewers and public hearings before approvals could be granted.
But under the new provisions, residents will no longer be able to appeal decisions, according to Lindgren.
“On behalf of our clients, over the past 30 years, we’ve used that appeal provision to go after potentially harmful approvals for landfills, or water taking, or discharge of contaminants into water or into the air,” he explained.
“In a number of cases that I’ve done, the tribunal has sometimes seen fit to revoke the approval, basically quash or set it aside… [This bill] is a fairly significant rollback. People will no longer be able to hold the ministry accountable for poor environmental decision making with respect to approvals.”
Bill could open the door to corruption: Environmental Defence
Meanwhile, Phil Pothen, Counsel and Ontario Environment Program Manager at Environmental Defence, says the proposal would open the door for the province to create, change or remove regulations that could impact public health and the environment with no mandatory need for consultation or public consultation.
By removing the public’s ability to request appeals and mandatory postings of approved projects to the Environment Registry of Ontario, the advocate says the bill could also reduce anti-corruption protection.
“It’s not just an environmental issue. It’s really a huge issue for the whole public, even people who don’t care about the environment,” Pothen said.
“This would create a very obvious corruption risk as well as a public safety risk, because it would allow polluters and developers to exploit a newly created loophole before the public or any other level of government or citizen groups can even find out they exist. By the time the change is known… some of the damage and the profit taking would already be done.”
Bill would also keep the public from requesting investigations: Environmental lawyer
On top of stripping the public’s right to review new approvals and legislation, Lindgren said the Environmental Bill of Rights allows residents to request investigations and reviews over already existing projects.
Under one provision of the bill, the lawyer said the public can request that current legislation be reviewed or removed on the grounds that they are outdated or no longer offer adequate protection. However, that right would also disappear under Bill 140.
“For over 30 years we’ve used it, and other people have used it pretty successfully to ask the ministry to review and revise gaps in the law if that’s necessary. That’s a fairly frequently used tool that will be terminated,” he said.
In addition, the new bill would also end the public’s right to file applications asking for an investigation over suspected offenses.
“If residents are concerned that a company is discharging contaminants into the air or land or water in a manner that is not allowed under the laws, regulations, or approvals, [they] can formally apply to the ministry for an investigation,” he said.
“Bill 140 proposes to take that away, so it won’t be an opportunity to formally apply for an investigation, and no obligation on the ministry to respond.”
Organizations call for the bill to be repealed
In light of concerns over the bill, both the CELA and the Environmental Defence are calling on the provincial government to repeal the bill.
Although the government website states the bill aims to accelerate development to make Ontario’s industry more competitive and cut on unnecessary red tape, advocates say protection should still be a priority.
“There are many of us in the environmental community who say environmental protection, protection of health and safety, that’s not red tape. Those are essential safeguards that need to be in place and available to people in order to protect themselves and their communities,” Lindgren said.
“The Environmental Bill of Rights has been in place since 1993. It’s a really important law. It’s been well used by people, and has survived several successes of provincial governments over the decades. No one has seemed fit to take out most of the important parts of that bill until now.”
Similarly, Pothen said the province could take alternative steps to reduce bureaucracy while maintaining environmental protection.
“If they wanted to make things faster without removing the regulations, they would get rid of the regulatory registry postings for these statutes and regulations, and keep the environment registry postings. They would keep the rights of appeal under the environmental bill of rights,” he suggested. “There is a difference between red tape and actual protection.”
Now Toronto has reached out to the premier’s office and the Red Tape Ministry for comment, but is still awaiting a response.
