AI-generated illustration; not a photograph of the reported event.
- calendar_today October 31, 2026
Ontario Bill 140 Under Fire for Potential Impact on Environmental Bill of Rights
Environmental organizations are raising alarms over Ontario government's proposed Bill 140, officially known as the Building Ontario Faster Act, 2026. The legislation, introduced by Red Tape Reduction Minister Andrea Khanjin, is intended to streamline infrastructure delivery, reduce bureaucracy, and strengthen economic competitiveness in Ontario. However, critics argue that these changes may dramatically weaken critical environmental protections and limit public participation in government decision-making processes.
Key Features and Criticism of Bill 140
According to groups such as Environmental Defence and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Bill 140 would undermine the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), a law first enacted in 1993 to empower Ontarians in environmental governance. The EBR currently allows residents to review proposed government projects, provide feedback through the Environment Registry of Ontario (ERO), and appeal certain government-approved developments to the Ontario Land Tribunal. It also grants the public rights to request investigations into environmental violations and reviews of outdated laws.
Under Bill 140, advocates warn that several of these rights could be drastically curtailed. CELA staff lawyer Richard Lindgren states that Schedule 8 of the bill would remove residents’ rights to appeal certain environmental approvals and eliminate the ability to request investigations or reviews. The loss of these legal avenues, Lindgren argues, would leave the EBR “with a nice sounding title, ‘Environmental Bill Rights,’ but really no substantive content, no legal rights that people can really use.”
Impact on Public Consultation and Environmental Protections
Environmental groups stress that the proposed legislation would shrink opportunities for public input by reducing requirements to post development projects on the ERO and eliminating mandatory consultations. This, they maintain, weakens democratic oversight and could lead to poorer decision-making and increased environmental risks.
The EBR provisions have for decades enabled both concerned citizens and organizations to challenge and sometimes reverse potentially damaging approvals for landfills, water taking, and contaminant discharges. By rolling back these mechanisms, Bill 140 could significantly reduce the public's ability to hold the Ministry of the Environment accountable for its decisions.
Concerns Over Corruption and Public Safety Risks
Phil Pothen, Counsel and Ontario Environment Program Manager at Environmental Defence, points out that the elimination of mandatory postings and appeals also poses anti-corruption and public safety concerns. He argues that without these checks, the government or project developers could introduce regulation changes that impact public health and the environment with little or no public scrutiny. "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," Pothen says.
Loss of Investigations and Reviews
Lindgren further warns that Bill 140 would terminate long-standing provisions allowing residents to request reviews of existing environmental legislation, as well as make formal applications for investigations into alleged infractions. These rights have been instrumental in addressing outdated laws and uncovering violations for more than three decades.
"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," Lindgren notes, emphasizing that Bill 140 would remove any obligation for the ministry to even respond to such public concerns.
Call for Repeal and Suggestions for Alternative Approaches
In light of these concerns, both CELA and Environmental Defence are urging the provincial government to withdraw Bill 140. Advocates argue that while efficiency is important, essential safeguards for the environment, public health, and safety should not be considered "red tape." They suggest that faster project delivery does not require the removal of key public participation rights, and that alternative measures could reduce bureaucracy without undermining environmental protection.
The Ontario government maintains that Bill 140 would maintain appropriate environmental and safety protections, but as of now, has not responded directly to these criticisms. Advocacy groups continue to monitor the bill and demand public engagement on the proposed changes.
Related coverage
Source: nowtoronto.com.
