Agenda - Special Council - 20250715Town of Aurora
Special Meeting of Council
Revised Agenda
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025
Time:5 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, Aurora Town Hall
Meetings are available to the public in person and via live stream on the Town’s YouTube channel.
To participate, please visit aurora.ca/participation.
Pages
1.Call to Order
This meeting has been called in accordance with section 21(b)(ii) of the Town of
Aurora Procedure By-law No. 6228-19.
Note: Added items are marked with an asterisk (*).
2.Land Acknowledgement
3.Approval of the Agenda
4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
5.Delegations
5.1 Kathy Duncan, Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora; Re: Opposition to
Provincial Bills 5 and 17
1
*5.2 David Heard, Resident; Re: Provincial Bill 5 2
6.Consent Agenda
That the Consent Agenda, items 6.1 to 6.3 inclusive, be received for information.
6.1 Correspondence from Mayor Mrakas; Re: Ontario Bills 5 and 17 3
That the correspondence from Mayor Mrakas regarding Ontario
Bills 5 and 17 be received for information.
1.
6.2 Correspondence from Councillor Weese; Re: Ontario Bills 5 and 17 4
That the correspondence from Councillor Weese regarding1.
Ontario Bills 5 and 17 be received for information.
*6.3 Correspondence from Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora; Re: Urgent
Concerns About Ontario Provincial Bill 5
6
That the correspondence from Climate Action Newmarket-
Aurora regarding Urgent Concerns About Ontario Provincial Bill 5
be received for information.
1.
7.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion
7.1 Member Motion - Councillor Weese; Re: Opposition to Bill 5, Protect
Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025
21
Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That Aurora Town Council
officially opposes Bill 5 in its current form as it interferes with
local planning authorities, limits public consultation, and
threatens both heritage designations and endangered species;
and
1.
Be It Further Resolved That this Motion be forwarded to all 444
Ontario Municipalities, Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and
Hon. Stephen Lecce, Ontario Minister of Energy and Mines.
2.
7.2 Member Motion - Councillor Weese; Re: Opposition to Bill 17, Protect
Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025
22
Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That Aurora Town Council
officially opposes Ontario Bill 17 in its current form, and
recommends;
1.
Restoring municipal autonomy, and ensuring meaningful
consultation and decision-making power;
•
Maintaining rigorous environmental, safety, and heritage
assessments despite expedited timelines;
•
Incorporating clear affordable housing requirements within
new developments;
•
Enhancing transparency, public engagement and
accountability mechanisms;
•
Ensuring climate change mitigation is included in all
development projects; and
•
Be It Further Resolved That this Motion be forwarded to all 444
Ontario Municipalities, Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and
Hon. Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
2.
8.Confirming By-law
8.1 By-law Number XXXX-25 - Being a By-law to confirm actions by Council
resulting from a Special Meeting of Council on July 15, 2025
24
9.Adjournment
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Delegation Request
This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or
Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services.
Council or Committee (Choose One) *
Council
Council or Committee Meeting Date *
2025-7-15
Subject *
Opposition to provincial bills 5 and 17
Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) *
Kathy Duncan - Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora
Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation *
Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora supports the Council of the Town of Aurora in opposing the provincially
passed bill 5 (Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025) and bill 17 (Protect Ontario by Building
Smarter and Faster Act, 2025). I intend to outline our rationale for opposition.
Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? *
Yes No
Full name of the Town staff or Council member
with whom you spoke
Councillor Ron Weese
Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council
member
2025-7-7
I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. *
Agree
I acknowledge that I understand and accept the delegate conduct expectations as outlined in Section
32(b) of the Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended (link below) *
Agree
Click to view Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended.
Page 1 of 24
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Delegation Request
This request and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or
Committees of Council is being submitted to Legislative Services.
Council or Committee (Choose One) *
Council
Council or Committee Meeting Date *
2025-7-15
Subject *
Bill 5
Full Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable) *
David Heard
Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation *
Concerns of our valued heritage.
Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? *
Yes No
Full name of the Town staff or Council member
with whom you spoke
Ron Weese / Adam Robb
Date you spoke with Town staff or a Council
member
2025-7-3
I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. *
Agree
I acknowledge that I understand and accept the delegate conduct expectations as outlined in Section
32(b) of the Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended (link below) *
Agree
Click to view Procedure By-law 6228-19, as amended.
Page 2 of 24
TOM MRAKAS
MAYOR
July 7, 2025
Members of Council,
As Mayor of Aurora and a member of the AMO Board, I want to offer some perspective on Bills 5 and 17.
These are substantial and complex pieces of legislation. While there are certainly elements within each bill that raise legitimate
concerns—particularly regarding municipal autonomy and long-term fiscal sustainability—there are also parts that, if
implemented collaboratively and thoughtfully, could offer real benefits for Ontario’s communities.
Importantly, both bills have now received Royal Assent, which means they have passed into law. Additionally, all public
commenting periods are now closed. The next phase—the one that truly determines how these laws will function—is the
development and release of the regulations, which are still to come.
To bring forward two motions to oppose these bills in their entirety now—after the legislation has passed and the consultation
period has ended—is both pointless and moot. It serves no constructive purpose and does nothing to influence the process
that’s already underway.
That’s why almost all municipalities have taken a measured approach, rather than opposing the bills outright. There’s good
reason for this. AMO has clearly stated that while some aspects of the legislation require clarification and adjustment, other
proposals—like Development Charge modernization in Bill 17and Special Economic Zones in Bill 5—could help drive local
economic growth if municipalities are full partners in the process.
The reality is, these are framework bills, not finished products. The regulations that will define their real-world impacts have not
yet been released. Even our municipal staff do not fully know what the implications will be. Unlike more straightforward bills—
such as the reversal of tribunal rules—Bills 5 and 17 are layered, far-reaching, and depend heavily on how the regulations are
written. Anyone claiming to know exactly how these will play out is not being truthful—because even the Province has
acknowledged those details are still in development.
As a member of the AMO Board—representing 444 municipalities across Ontario—I believe it is premature and irresponsible to
oppose these bills in their entirety before understanding the full regulatory framework. AMO’s position is clear: if the Province
works with municipalities, many of the potential risks can be mitigated. Acting in opposition now, before those opportunities to
collaborate have been exhausted, risks losing influence over how the final regulations are shaped.
I remain hopeful that through open, ongoing dialogue with the Province—and by continuing to advocate for practical,
transparent, and community-focused regulations—we can help shape outcomes that work for everyone and ensure Aurora has
a meaningful voice in the decisions ahead.
In the meantime, I will not support the motions calling for opposition to both Bills 5 and 17 in their entirety, which are being
brought forward at the July Council meeting requested by the four members of Council. I believe the more responsible and
constructive course of action is for our Town to stand with AMO and support their detailed, thoughtful submissions.
I will continue to monitor developments closely, work collaboratively with our municipal partners and AMO, and respond in a
way that is informed, balanced, and focused on real outcomes. I will always stand for Aurora and our best interests. We have
led on many issues before—and this will be no different.
That is what leadership requires—and what our residents deserve.
Mayor Tom Mrakas
Page 3 of 24
July 7, 2025
Mayor Mrakas and Members of Council,
At the June 10th Committee of the Whole, a Delegate asked for the Town to officially
oppose both Ontario Bill 5 and 17 officially. At the June 16th Meeting of the
Environmental Advisory Committee, which I Chair, the Committee highlighted Provincial
Bill 5 and its potential to negatively impact the environment, through amending and/or
repealing the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and the Environmental Assessment Act.
The Special Meeting of Council scheduled for July 15, 2025, is timely and will allow
Council to publicly discuss and debate these Bills and formulate a measured Aurora
response for consideration. It is what diligent Councils do for their municipalities.
Ontario Bill 5 “Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025” achieved
third reading and Royal Assent on June 5th, after only a 49-day journey through the
legislature when a closure motion on June 3 curtailed further debate, streamlining the
process to final approval. While legally enacted, municipal resistance, accompanied by
environmental groups, have raised questions aimed at challenging or modifying this
legislation. Municipal concerns have been identified from the Bill’s provisions to reduce
regulatory barriers, expedite development, and centralize provincial authority remain.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) expressed cautious support for
Bill 5’s goal to speed up development, provided municipalities have meaningful input on
Special Economic Zones (SEZ). In its May 26 submission, AMO urged that SEZ’s
override local bylaws only with host municipal support and only in extraordinary
circumstances, and insisted on preserving environmental protections, including species-
at-risk safeguards, and upholding Indigenous rights. AMO’s position, urges care to
ensure local voices and ecological responsibilities aren’t sidelined, nor undermines our
Official Plan.
Ontario Bill 17, called the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act,
2025, is narrowly focused on construction standards and amends the Building Code Act
to centralize authority for all building performance regulations at the provincial level. The
Bill was sent directly to third reading without committee or public hearings, with minimal
debate or stakeholder input. From introduction (May 12) to becoming law (June 5),
Bill 17 advanced through all legislative stages in just 24 days. It received Royal Assent
before the public consultation period had closed, underscoring its unusually swift and
streamlined passage. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has stated in
their submission to the Environmental Registry of Ontario that, ‘While we are supportive
of efforts to standardize and streamline planning to help drive development, careful
consideration needs to be given to the changes made under Bill 17 and proposed for
further consultation .‘AMO looks forward to collaborating with the province to help bring
municipal stakeholders and perspectives forward during consultation’. Municipal issues
remain, such as undermining environmental protections for endangered species, the
Page 4 of 24
2
tree canopy and flood resistance. It also threatens accessibility standards by preventing
municipalities from requiring enhanced accessible building standards.
Advocacy for a balanced approach is needed that respects local governance and
ensures that rapid growth does not come at the expense of livable, resilient, and
accessible communities that respect heritage in both the built form and the environment.
In Aurora we want to make things happen rather that watch or wonder what happened.
A Special Meeting of Council is being held on July 15th to discuss the
implications of these Bills on our municipality and formulate a measured
response that reflects our Council’s commitment to controlled growth,
accessibility and environmental and heritage protection that relies on made-in-
Aurora solutions. To do otherwise would abdicate Council’s responsibility to our
residents by meekly accepting terms of these two important Bills that affect us
without comment.
Sincerely,
Councillor Ron Weese
Ward 1 Councillor
365-500-3090
rweese@aurora.ca
Page 5 of 24
Provincial Bill 5 ‘Protect Ontario By Unleashing Our Economy Act’ and all 10
related Schedules and ERO notices.
Subject: Urgent Concerns About Ontario Provincial Bill 5
To: Premier Ford, Minister of Energy and Mining, MPP Lecce, Minister of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks, MPP McCarthy, Minister of Indigenous Affairs,
MPP Rickford, and Minister of Transportation, MPP Sarkaria.
Cc. Leader of the Opposition Marit Stiles, Opposition Critic Energy and Climate Action
MPP Tabuns, Opposition Critic of Indigenous and Treaty Relations & Northern
Development, MP Sol Mamakwa, Leader of the Green Party MPP Schreiner, and
Leader of the Liberal party, Bonnie Crombie.
Cc. Federal Minister of the Energy, and Natural Resources, MP Wilkinson, Federal
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, MP Duguid, Minister of Fisheries,
Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, MP Thompson, Minister of
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Minister, MP Anandasangaree and
Minister of Canadian Culture and Identity, Parks Canada and Quebec Lieutenant, MP
Steven Guilbeault
Cc. Municipal Councils of Newmarket and Aurora (via Town Clerk)
Premier Ford and Ministers Lecce, Rickford and Sarkaria:
Climate Action Newmarket Aurora is sending this correspondence as a concerned
association which supports responsible growth but not at the expense of Indigenous
rights, the environment, climate action, or democratic accountability.
We all want a thriving Ontario, and we must have ‘elbows up’ in the face of economic
pressure from the U.S. But Bill 5, the Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy
Act, raises serious red flags. It goes too far, too fast - drastically reducing public and
scientific consultation, gutting protections for endangered species and the environment,
sidelining Indigenous voices on issues that directly affect their lands and heritage, and
will impact the climate crisis in a negative way despite the intent to provide the
resources to support positive climate energy action.
Ontario should push for critical minerals, clean energy, active transit infrastructure, and
green SEZs but it must include First Nations as equal partners - not silent observers.
These priorities must not come at the cost of species extinction, the elimination of
environmental assessments during the climate crisis, or stripping the public of legal
recourse.
Page 6 of 24
The Endangered Species Act and environmental assessments must not be replaced by
the weaker Conservation Act. They must be strengthened, not sacrificed.
Though the bill’s title implies economic protection, its contents reveal a different agenda
- one that centralizes power, reduces oversight, and favors unchecked development
over nature, rights, and accountability.
Alternatives for Sustainable Growth:
● Fast-Track Low-Impact Projects: Expedite approvals for developments that
meet pre-approved environmental standards.
● Green-Focused SEZs: Designate zones for clean tech and sustainable
innovation, with incentives tied to environmental performance.
● Mandatory Indigenous and Community Consultation: Require consultation
for major projects, especially in SEZs and areas like Ontario Place.
● Strengthen the Endangered Species Act: Modernize with adaptive
management and developer partnerships to protect habitats.
● Expand Conservation Programs: Support habitat restoration and
community-led stewardship through public-private partnerships.
● Clear Criteria for Exemptions: Apply only to projects with net environmental
benefit. Create a “green certification” for high-standard developers.
● Public Project Dashboard: Ensure real-time transparency on assessments,
consultations, and project status.
● Reform, Don’t Eliminate, Legal Appeals: Improve access and transparency
while preventing abuse, especially for cases affecting health or environmental
justice.
Climate Action Newmarket Aurora urges you to press pause on Bill 5. Reopen
meaningful consultation with scientists, Indigenous communities, and the public. Let’s
advance Ontario’s economy without sacrificing what makes this province worth
protecting. With collaboration and care, we can build a future that leaves no voice or
ecosystem behind and stands strong.
Sincerely,
Page 7 of 24
Melanie Duckett-Wilson
On behalf of Climate Action Newmarket Aurora
www.climateactionna.org
climateaction.newmarketaurora@gmail.com
ERO notices:
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0416
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0418
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0380
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0409
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0389
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0391
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0380
Page 8 of 24
Climate Action Newmarket Aurora - Response to proposed Bill 5
Initial public consultation concerns:
● Proposed Bill 5, “Protecting Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act” is split
into 10 different schedules and whereby some schedules have a different ERO
reference number of input and others do not (Schedules 1, 4 & 8)
● ERO numbers for response, all due at the same time, May 17, 2025 - 30 days in
this instance doesn’t allow for adequate public stakeholder input given the range
and depth of the proposed legislative changes.
● Given the haste with which all the components of this Bill have been put together,
there should be serious concern about how much expert and scientific
consultation was sought as part of the preparation process.
Summary of Ontario’s Legislative Changes (10 Schedules, 2025)
These are the potential benefits the province is looking to secure:
● Faster Project Approvals, especially in Special Economic Zones and Ontario
Place.
● Streamlined Energy Procurement allows the government to prioritize local or
aligned suppliers in energy projects of its choosing.
● Flexible Development Tools allows the government to modify or exempt
regulations in priority zones
Key Concerns If Implemented - the ‘not-so-hidden’ cost:
● Environmental Oversight Weakened:
Several laws now limit or bypass public consultation, especially under the
Environmental Bill of Rights. This reduces transparency and accountability.
● Species Protections Rolled Back:
The new Species Conservation Act replaces the stronger Endangered
Species Act, softening legal protections and enabling more development in
sensitive habitats.
● Indigenous Rights Overlooked:
Though artifacts may be returned to Indigenous communities, the broader
exemption powers and lack of consultation could undermine Indigenous
stewardship of land and heritage.
Page 9 of 24
● Erosion of Democratic Participation:
Legal rights to comment, appeal, or sue over environmental and development
decisions are restricted or extinguished in several areas, limiting public and
legal recourse.
BREAKDOWN OF EACH SCHEDULE
Schedule 1 025-0416 Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025.
Key Concerns: IESO is no longer INDEPENDENT
1. Government Can Control Who Gets Energy Contracts: The government can
now tell Ontario’s electricity authority (the IESO) to give contracts for energy
projects (like building power plants or buying electricity) based on where the
goods or services come from
2. Limits on What Contracts the IESO Can Make: The government can also
create rules that stop the IESO from making certain contracts for electricity
projects, depending on the situation.
3. The IESO Can’t Buy Things Outside Electricity Unless Allowed: The IESO
isn’t allowed to buy goods or services that aren’t directly related to
electricity—unless the government makes specific exceptions in the rules.
4. Restrictions on Ontario Power Generation (OPG): OPG and its subsidiaries
may also face new rules about what they can buy, based on where those goods
or services come from
5. No Lawsuits Allowed: A new rule says people can’t sue the government, IESO,
or OPG over anything connected to these new amendments even if a legitimate
wrong was done.
In short: The government has more control over who gets energy contracts, allows
them to block certain deals, and protects themselves and energy companies from being
sued thereby explicitly denying any liability for these decisions.
Schedule 2 ERO 025-0380 – Proposed interim changes to the Endangered
Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025 |
Environmental Registry of Ontario
The Ontario government is proposing major changes to the Endangered Species Act,
2007, and many of them reduce protections for at-risk wildlife and give the government
more control over decisions.
Key Concerns:
Page 10 of 24
1. Weakened Purpose of the Act: The overall goal of the Act is being changed,
which could shift the focus away from strong protection of species at risk.
2. Redefining “Habitat” (s. 2(1)): The definition of what counts as a species’
“habitat” is being updated, which could narrow what areas get protected.
3. Minister Can Delegate Power (s. 2.1): The Minister of the Environment can now
hand over their powers to others, potentially reducing oversight.
4. Listing of Species is No Longer Automatic (s. 7):
○ Right now, species assessed as endangered or threatened by COSSARO
(the expert science committee) must be listed and protected.
○ Under the changes, the government can choose whether or not to list
those species (s. 7(1)).
○ If a species is removed from the list, its protections immediately end (s.
7(3)).
5. Immediate Protections Removed: Species that get listed will no longer get
automatic, temporary protection while full regulations are developed.
6. Removal of Response Plans and Agreements: The government will no longer
be required to create action plans or agreements to help species recover.
7. Easier to Approve Harmful Activities (s. 17): The rules are changed so permits
to damage or destroy species or their habitats can be granted more easily, with
fewer conditions.
a. Hearings Eliminated (s. 20 & 30): The right to a
hearing on certain species-related decisions is being
replaced with a more limited appeals process.
8. End of Species Protection Fund (s. 20.3): The flow of money into the fund
used for species recovery is being stopped.
9. Agency Wind-Down (s. 20.19): The agency that helps implement the Act will be
shut down.
10. New Powers to Demand Info (s. 22.1): People must now answer questions from
government officials to check if they’re following the rules.
11. More Inspections, Less Oversight: Officials can now inspect without a warrant
in more cases.
12. Shift in Enforcement Powers: Stop orders are removed, and new orders like
mitigation orders are added, giving more control to the Minister and provincial
officers.
13. Advisory Committees Removed: The Minister is no longer required to set up
advisory groups with experts.
14. Special Regulation Requirements Repealed (s. 57): Rules that made it harder
to weaken protections through regulations are gone.
15. Schedules Repealed: Schedules 1 to 5, which included lists of species and
habitat details, are being removed.
Page 11 of 24
In short:
Endangered and at-risk species and the avenues to protect them have been dismantled
in order to facilitate development.
Schedule 3 ERO 0259- Environmental Assessment Act Removing Environmental
Assessment Requirements for the York1 Waste Disposal Site Project
This part of the legislation changes how environmental assessments (EAs) are handled
for certain major projects in Ontario, and weakens oversight in key cases:
1. Cancels Environmental Oversight for the Eagle’s Nest Mine (s. 3.0.1) ERO
025-0396:
The government is terminating a special environmental agreement that applied to
the Eagle’s Nest multi-metal mine near McFaulds Lake in Northern Ontario
(Ring of Fire region).
○ A related approval under the Environmental Assessment Act is also
being revoked, meaning the project no longer has to meet those EA
requirements.
2. Exempts Chatham-Kent Waste Project from Assessment ERO 025-0389
(Part II.3):
Under Part II.3 of the Act, big projects usually have to get approval from the
Minister before moving ahead. But the Chatham-Kent waste disposal site does
not..
In short:
The government is letting major industrial projects—like a large mine in Northern
Ontario and a waste disposal site in Chatham-Kent to bypass normal environmental
assessment processes. Removing them means less transparency, less consultation,
and fewer protections for the environment and Indigenous lands.
Schedule 4 - Environmental Protection Act ERO (unclear if this is part of
025-0416 as it doesn’t seem to have it’s own ERO#)
through the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR), which is a system
businesses use to register certain activities that impact the environment (like emissions
or waste handling):
1. Cancels the Existing Fee Document:
The government is revoking a document that was signed by the Minister which
set the fees for registering in the EASR.
2. Allows for Refunds:
The Minister is now allowed to refund those fees if a registration is removed
Page 12 of 24
from the system—for example, if a business no longer needs to be registered or
if their registration is cancelled under the Act.
In short:
It could make it cheaper or easier for businesses to withdraw from environmental
oversight through the EASR, and give the Minister more discretion over fee handling.
While it seems minor, This may signal a broader move to reduce the financial and
regulatory burden on companies, even when their activities negatively affect the
environment.
Schedule 5 ERO 025-0409 - Mining Act
This Schedule makes major changes to how mining is managed in Ontario, especially
when it comes to protecting what the government calls the “strategic national mineral
supply chain”—basically, making sure important minerals (like those used in batteries
or electronics) are controlled and prioritized.
Key Concerns:
1. Economic Growth Takes Priority Over Environmental and Indigenous
Concerns
The Act now explicitly states that mining activities should support Ontario’s
economy. By embedding economic growth into the law’s purpose,
environmental protection and Indigenous rights risk being sidelined when
they are perceived to conflict with industry interests.
2. Minister Can Suspend Mining Rules With No Public Input
The Minister has new authority to suspend parts of the online mining claim
system to protect the mineral supply chain. This power can be used without
consultation, including on lands that may hold environmental significance
or fall within Indigenous territories.
3. Fast-Tracking Mining Projects Reduces Oversight
A new permitting team can accelerate mining approvals by coordinating across
ministries. This push for speed increases the risk that environmental
reviews, duty-to-consult obligations, and community concerns will be
bypassed or minimized.
4. Minister Can Deny or Cancel Mining Leases Without Safeguards
The Minister can now block or cancel leases and claims if they believe it benefits
the mineral supply chain. This expands state control over land decisions —
without guarantees that Indigenous rights, environmental harm, or treaty
Page 13 of 24
obligations will be considered.
5. Communities Cannot Challenge Harmful Decisions in Court
The law removes the right to take legal action against decisions made under
these new powers — even if a mining claim threatens ecological health or
violates Indigenous jurisdiction. By extinguishing legal challenges, it cuts off
one of the few tools communities have to defend land and water.
In short:
These changes give the Ontario government sweeping new powers to control who can
access or develop Ontario’s mineral resources, especially critical minerals. It
prioritizes economic and national interests, and allows the government to override
existing rights, cancel claims, or fast-track projects, often without public input. The
removal of legal recourse also means people and communities can’t challenge
these decisions in court, which raises serious concerns for landowners, Indigenous
groups, and environmental advocates.
Schedule 6 ERO 025-0409- Ontario Energy Act 1998
Key Concerns:
1. New Rules (Sections 43.1 & 73) give more centralized power:
The government can limit where certain goods or services are purchased, based
on their country, region, or territory of origin.
These restrictions can apply to:
○ Gas companies and their subsidiaries — that the government chooses
through regulations. (Section 43.1)
○ Licensed energy companies and their subsidiaries — again, only the
ones specified in regulations. (Section 73)
2. Basically, if the government says so, these companies can be told not to buy
from certain places, even from within Canada.
3. Protection from Lawsuits (Section 134)
A new section says you can’t sue the government (or certain other people) over
things they did, didn’t do or will do.
Schedule 7 ERO 025-0418 - Heritage Act Proposed Amendments to the Ontario
Heritage Act, Schedule 7 of the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025
Page 14 of 24
025-0418 - Heritage Act Key Concerns:
1. Loss of Control Over Ancestral Lands:
The Minister can now order inspections on any land, even underwater, without
consent. This could include traditional territories, raising the risk of intrusion,
disruption, or claims on culturally important areas without involving Indigenous
voices.
2. Barriers to Accessing Sacred Artifacts:
The law blocks anyone from touching or moving potential artifacts until a
licensed archaeologist says it’s okay. This creates a colonial gatekeeping system,
where Indigenous people may be denied access to their own cultural items or
sites.
3. Artifacts Could Still Be Taken First, Returned Later—If at All:
Although some artifacts may be handed to Indigenous communities, this only
happens after they’re seized. The power to decide where artifacts go still lies with
the Minister, not the community they belong to.
4. Cultural Sites Can Be Ignored for Development:
The government can now exempt lands from heritage protections to prioritize
housing or infrastructure. That means sacred or significant Indigenous sites can
legally be bulldozed and communities have no legal way to stop it or seek
justice.
5. Increased Surveillance Without Consent:
Investigators have new powers to search, seize, and demand
documents—raising concerns about surveillance of Indigenous groups,
cultural organizations, or businesses involved in heritage protection or
repatriation efforts.
Schedule 8 025-0416 – Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 ERO 025-0416 Protect
Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025.
This change says that Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 does not
apply to anything involving the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project.
What does that mean?
By exempting the Ontario Place redevelopment project from key parts of the
Environmental Bill of Rights—specifically, the requirement to give public notice and
Page 15 of 24
allow for public comment—it effectively silences the voices of Ontarians and removes a
critical layer of environmental accountability. This proposed change is dangerous to
both the environment and our democracy.
Normally, the Environmental Registry ensures transparency and gives people a chance
to weigh in on developments that could affect their communities and ecosystems.
Removing this opportunity means decisions that could have serious environmental
impacts might move forward without public oversight or scientific scrutiny. And it's not
just limited to the Ontario Place site—the exemption also applies to related
projects beyond the site, creating a broad loophole for unchecked development.
Schedule 9 ERO 025-0391 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 Special
Economic Zones Act, 2025 | Environmental Registry of Ontario
Key concerns:
● The government can exempt trusted companies or projects from normal rules,
like:
○ Municipal by-laws
○ Environmental rules
○ Other legal requirements
● The rules can also be changed or modified just for those companies or
projects in the zone.
● Legal suits over these exemptions or changes are significantly limited. Certain
legal claims (causes of action) are wiped out—they can’t be brought to
court.
Schedule 10 ERO 025-0416- Species Conservation Act, 2025
Key Concerns:
The updated approach to species protection includes new systems and structures but
beneath the surface, several changes weaken the province’s ability to prevent species
decline and extinction. While the law maintains some conservation elements, it
introduces gaps that place vulnerable wildlife and habitats at greater risk:
1. Partial Protections for Some Species
If species are already listed under federal laws, they will not receive full
protection under Ontario’s legislation. Some at-risk species may be monitored
without meaningful provincial intervention — leaving them in danger despite their
known vulnerability.
Page 16 of 24
2. Extinction Becomes the Threshold, Not the Warning Sign
The legislation prohibits actions that would cause a species to become extinct in
Ontario however, it does not prevent significant declines in population or habitat
loss that fall short of extinction. This shifts the standard of protection dangerously
low — effectively allowing harm to continue until a species is on the brink.
3. Permitting System May Facilitate Harmful Activity
While permits are required for activities that may affect species or their habitats,
the authority to issue, amend, or revoke these permits rests solely with the
Minister. This centralized discretion creates the possibility that industrial or
development projects may be approved even if they compromise species
survival, especially if those projects align with broader government
priorities.
4. Transparency Without Safeguards
A new digital registry does not ensure these decisions will be grounded in
conservation science or subject to independent oversight. Public visibility, without
corresponding accountability, offers little assurance that species will be
protected from harmful decisions.
5. Optional Guidelines Offer Weak Enforcement
The Minister may issue codes, standards, or best practices for species protection
but these remain optional and are not binding. This undermines efforts to
establish clear, enforceable rules for habitat preservation and recovery,
relying instead on voluntary or situational compliance.
6. Risk of Disruption During Legal Transition
As the province transitions from the previous Endangered Species Act to this
new framework, there is potential for disruption in existing protections, funding
programs, and recovery efforts. Any pause in these activities, even
temporary, may have lasting consequences for species already under
stress from climate change, habitat loss, and human activity.
In Conclusion:
Climate Action Newmarket Aurora is opposed to the aforementioned components
of the 10 schedules of Bill 5. This Bill dismantles Ontario’s science-based species
protections, narrowing what counts as habitat and giving the government
sweeping discretion. By putting hasty development first, it abandons ecological
responsibility, vastly undermines Indigenous rights, and erodes democratic
Page 17 of 24
oversight — leaving at-risk species with few to no safeguards, no path to
recovery, and communities with no legal recourse.
Recommendations
The goal should be to accelerate development without compromising public rights
or nature’s protection. These alternatives can help strike a balance where:
● Clean energy projects are fast-tracked and incentivized,
● Environmental standards are upheld,
● Public and Indigenous participation remains central,
● Biodiversity and ecosystems are safeguarded.
1. Streamline Processes Without Eroding Oversight
● Alternative: Instead of completely bypassing environmental consultation,
fast-track processes for projects that are already deemed environmentally
neutral or have pre-approved environmental standards. This allows for
quicker approvals but ensures environmental safeguards remain intact.
● How It Helps: Maintains transparency and public involvement, while still
enabling fast-tracking of clean energy and infrastructure projects.
2. Strengthen Public and Indigenous Consultation
● Alternative: Introduce mandatory consultations with Indigenous communities
and local residents for major projects, especially in Special Economic Zones
or redevelopment areas like Ontario Place. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge
and perspectives early in the planning process helps ensure land and cultural
protection.
● How It Helps: Ensures Indigenous rights and community input are not
sidelined, fostering collaboration and better decision-making.
3. Environmental Integrity with Flexibility
● Alternative: Use clear criteria for when exemptions or modifications to
environmental rules apply—such as for projects that demonstrate net positive
environmental impact, like carbon-offsetting or biodiversity restoration
projects.
Introduce a "green certification" for developers that meet sustainability
standards, allowing them to access expedited approvals.
● How It Helps: Supports clean energy projects while maintaining strong
environmental protections and public trust. It also incentivizes developers
Page 18 of 24
and builders to consistently apply sustainable practices making them the norm in
the industry.
4. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability
● Alternative: Create a more transparent public dashboard on the ERO to track
ongoing projects, environmental assessments, and public consultations. This
allows citizens to stay informed, share concerns, and have access to real-time
data without having to rely on reactive legal processes.
● How It Helps: Increases public engagement, ensures accountability, and
supports clean energy/mining development while keeping stakeholders
informed.
5. Preserve and Improve Species Protection
● Alternative: Create conservation easements and partnerships with developers
to protect habitat alongside development.
● How It Helps: Balances species protection with economic growth, ensuring
that development doesn’t come at the cost of biodiversity.
6. Ongoing Investment in Conservation Programs
● Alternative: Expand the Endangered Species Act to include more
public-private partnerships, with funding for habitat restoration, sustainable
land-use planning, and community-based conservation efforts. Provide
incentives for landowners or businesses to contribute to biodiversity preservation
and carbon reduction.
● How It Helps: Promotes conservation without stifling development, offering
incentives for environmental stewardship.
7. Ensure Fair Compensation and Legal Recourse
● Alternative: Instead of extinguishing certain legal claims or appeals, reform
the appeal process to make it more accessible and transparent, while ensuring
that meritorious claims can still proceed, especially for cases where public
health or environmental justice is at stake.
● How It Helps: Ensures that people still have access to legal avenues for holding
the government accountable while reducing frivolous lawsuits that delay
important projects.
8. Foster Green Innovation in Special Economic Zones
Page 19 of 24
● Alternative: Designate Special Economic Zones that specifically promote
green technologies and sustainable businesses, such as renewable energy
projects, clean-tech startups, or environmental research hubs. Provide
incentives for companies that meet sustainability and environmental standards.
● How It Helps: Encourages clean energy development, green innovation, and
investment opportunities while maintaining environmental protections within
SEZs.
Page 20 of 24
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Member Motion
Councillor Weese
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Opposition to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025
To: Members of Council
From: Councillor Ron Weese
Date: July 15, 2025
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Whereas Bill 5 was granted Royal Assent on June 5, 2025; and
Whereas Bill 5 amends several key pieces of legislation with the goal of fast-tracking
economic development and introduces changes in legislation that affect local
governance, labour laws and environmental protections; and
Whereas the legislation includes the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 (SEZ) that gives
Queen’s Park the power to designate areas where regulatory approval processes can be
amended by the Ontario Government, potentially without input from local decision-
makers; and
Whereas the Endangered Species Act, 2007 has been dissolved and replaced by the
Species Conservation Act 2025, which environmental critics argue removes important
provisions of the former law; and
Whereas the new law also makes changes to the Ontario Heritage Act that potentially
could impact Heritage site designations; and
Whereas this law has been rushed through the legislature in 49 days, limiting
Committee time, public consultation and ensuring rapid passage;
1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That Aurora Town Council officially opposes
Bill 5 in its current form as it interferes with local planning authorities, limits public
consultation, and threatens both heritage designations and endangered species; and
2. Be It Further Resolved That this Motion be forwarded to all 444 Ontario
Municipalities, Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and Hon. Stephen Lecce, Ontario
Minister of Energy and Mines.
Page 21 of 24
100 John West Way
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
(905) 727-3123
aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
Member Motion
Councillor Weese
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Opposition to Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act,
2025
To: Members of Council
From: Councillor Ron Weese
Date: July 15, 2025
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Whereas Ontario Bill 17 (the legislation) was granted Royal Assent on June 5, 2025; and
Whereas the legislation raises significant concerns related to democratic governance,
environmental sustainability, municipal autonomy, and social equity; and
Whereas the legislation centralizes decision-making authority and reduces the power of
local municipalities in planning and development approvals; and
Whereas the legislation curtails public consultation rights, limiting residents’ ability to
influence projects impacting their neighbourhoods; and
Whereas the legislation accelerates approvals by reducing time for environmental
assessments, heritage evaluations, and public safety considerations that could result in
substandard buildings, strained infrastructure and negative long-term effects on
communities; and
Whereas the legislation threatens green spaces, natural habitats, and water resources
overlooking careful measures that allows sustainable growth and undermines Ontario’s
commitment to environmental stewardship; and
Whereas the legislation limits public hearings and community engagement
opportunities, which increases the risk of corruption, favouritism and poor local
planning decisions;
1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That Aurora Town Council officially opposes
Ontario Bill 17 in its current form, and recommends;
• Restoring municipal autonomy, and ensuring meaningful consultation and
decision-making power;
Page 22 of 24
Opposition to Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025
July 15, 2025 Page 2 of 2
• Maintaining rigorous environmental, safety, and heritage assessments despite
expedited timelines;
• Incorporating clear affordable housing requirements within new developments;
• Enhancing transparency, public engagement and accountability mechanisms;
• Ensuring climate change mitigation is included in all development projects; and
2. Be It Further Resolved That this Motion be forwarded to all 444 Ontario
Municipalities, Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and Hon. Rob Flack, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Page 23 of 24
The Corporation of The Town of Aurora By-law Number XXXX-25 Being a By-law to confirm actions by Council resulting from a Special Meeting of Council on July 15, 2025. The Council of the Corporation of The Town of Aurora hereby enacts as follows:
1. That the actions by Council at its Special Meeting of Council held on July 15, 2025,
in respect of each motion, resolution and other action passed and taken by the
Council at the said meeting is hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed.
2. That the Mayor and the proper officers of the Town are hereby authorized and
directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain
approvals where required and to execute all documents as may be necessary in
that behalf and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate
seal to all such documents.
Enacted by Town of Aurora Council this 15th day of July, 2025.
Tom Mrakas, Mayor
Ishita Soneji, Deputy Town Clerk
Page 24 of 24