Michelle Dorey Forestell, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Kingstonist.com

Just one day after Premier Doug Ford’s government passed extensive changes to Ontario’s Freedom of Information (FOI) law, Hastings–Lennox and Addington Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) Ric Bresee defended the overhaul as a matter of “clarity,” not reduced access — even as critics warn the changes could significantly limit what the public is allowed to see.

Bresee’s comments came on Friday, Apr. 24, 2026, one day after the province passed Bill 97, omnibus legislation that includes an extensive rewriting of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

At the centre of the changes is a new provision that removes records held by ministers and their offices from the legislation entirely — meaning they are no longer subject to FOI requests or oversight by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The change applies retroactively, a move expected to affect ongoing efforts to access records tied to high-profile government decisions.

What remains public — and what doesn’t

In response to Kingstonist questions at an unrelated announcement on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, Bresee said the system will continue to provide access to key government records, particularly those tied to formal decisions.

“Any actions coming out of the premier’s office, the cabinet, or our government as a whole work through the civil service staff,” he said. “Any information going back and forth between the politicians and the staff is still fully FOI-able.” 

Bresee drew a distinction between internal political discussions and formal government actions. 

“The deliberations are confidential,” he said. “The outcome… when that government decides to make that purchase or whatever that is — all of that is public information.” 

He pointed to contracts, agreements, and payments as examples of records that would remain accessible.

But when pressed on what would no longer be available, Bresee acknowledged that conversations between elected officials — including cabinet ministers — would be excluded. 

“A private conversation between two cabinet ministers… [is] not accessible to the public,” he said. 

Bresee rejected the idea that the changes represent a rollback in transparency.

“I don’t see it as a reduction in access,” he said. “I see it as a clarity.” 

Echoing the premier’s comments from Monday, Mar. 16, 2026, Bresee said the legislation modernizes a system dating back to 1986 and aligns Ontario with other jurisdictions.

Opposition, watchdog raise alarms

Opposition parties and Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner have criticized both the legislation’s substance and the manner in which it was passed.

Ontario New Democratic Party Leader Marit Stiles noted the extended late-night legislative sittings, accusing the government of trying to push the changes through without scrutiny.

“Just when you thought this government couldn’t get any worse, they’re now scheduling late-night sittings to quietly change the rules, hoping to keep Ontarians in the dark,” she said in a statement released on Sunday, Apr. 22, 2026.

“These changes are about one thing: giving Doug Ford more power to hide [the government’s] shady dealings from the public, the media and from anyone trying to get answers,” Stiles said.

Ontario Liberals have similarly stated that the bill constitutes “the most sweeping FOI changes in a generation,” and argue it undermines transparency and accountability.

Kingston and the Islands Liberal MPP Ted Hsu said the scope of the changes — particularly their retroactive application — raises red flags for him. 

“Bill 97 guts Freedom of Information laws by exempting any documents under a minister’s office’s control. That covers a lot of documents,” Hsu said in a statement to Kingstonist. “The fact that the changes are retroactive — cancelling ongoing FOI requests — suggests they have something to hide.”

Hsu also pointed to the potential impact on accountability, noting the province’s ability to make high-stakes decisions behind closed doors.

“The province can make people billions of dollars richer at the stroke of a pen by changing a regulation… That’s why it’s so important to have tools that shed light on what Ontario’s elected officials are doing,” Hsu said.

“Who did a minister speak to before making a decision? What did they know, and when did they know it? Those are the kinds of questions FOI is meant to answer.”

He added that the changes could also affect residents locally, because “Bill 97 also makes municipal freedom of information requests slower and easier to delay.”

Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, Patricia Kosseim, has also raised concerns about the scope of the changes, noting that Ontario’s existing legislation is already consistent with most other jurisdictions and established interpretations of federal access-to-information law.

“If records about government business can be shielded from scrutiny simply because they sit in a minister’s office, on a staffer’s device, or within a political account, public accountability is eviscerated,” Kosseim said.

Kosseim also warned the change would limit her office’s ability to independently oversee how the province handles Ontarians’ personal data, effectively allowing the government to police itself. She added that the exclusion could open the door to sensitive records being accessed on personal devices — increasing the risk of cyberattacks and data breaches.

Legal and practical implications

The changes follow a court ruling that required Premier Ford to provide government-related call logs from his personal cellphone for review by the commissioner.

With the new law applying retroactively, cases like that — and similar efforts to access records — might no longer proceed.

The amendment also means that records held within ministers’ offices could fall outside not only access-to-information rules but also the safeguards governing the management of personal data.

 While Bresee maintains that decisions — particularly those involving public funds — will remain visible, critics argue the changes could significantly narrow what counts as a public record in the first place.

As Bill 97 moves toward royal assent, the debate is shifting from whether decisions will be disclosed to whether the public will still be able to see how those decisions are made — and who was involved in making them.

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---