The Ontario Legislative Assembly recently approved a controversial amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, effectively exempting records held by provincial ministers from freedom of information requests. This move, part of Bill 97, known as the Plan to Protect Ontario Act, raises significant concerns over transparency and accountability within the province’s government.
The new amendment, which includes subsection 65(18), removes privacy protocols for records held by cabinet ministers, drawing criticism from privacy advocates. Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, Patricia Kosseim, has been vocal about the potential repercussions, emphasizing that this change could undermine her oversight role and complicate the monitoring of sensitive personal data held by the government. She also noted the increased risk of cyberattacks and data breaches, as highlighted in JURIST, due to the possibility of government records being accessed via personal devices.
This legislative change follows a provincial court ruling early this year, mandating Premier Doug Ford to produce government-related call logs from his personal cellphone records. The ruling resulted from a request by Global News, which had sought access to the premier’s call logs, shared publicly via a non-official device. The court had favored transparency, noting that the Premier could have avoided this dilemma by using official government devices. However, the newly passed amendment invalidates this court decision by retroactively changing the rules.
Premier Ford has defended the amendment, likening it to existing federal and provincial practices. Nonetheless, this defense contradicts the alignment Ontario’s previous legislation had with other jurisdictions and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of federal access laws.
This development comes at a time when the provincial government is embroiled in controversy over the recent purchase and swift reversal of a 28.9 million CAD private jet acquisition. With the opacity brought about by this new legal shield, discerning accountability within the cabinet has become increasingly difficult. The amendment has sparked concerns over who is responsible for decisions involving such high-stakes expenditures, as discussed in additional reports from Canadian journalists.
As the implications of this legislative change unfold, stakeholders from various sectors remain watchful. The debate continues over balancing governmental privacy with public transparency—a core tenet that underpins democratic governance.