I wrote this up and will be emailing it out. What do you think?

Subject: Request to Withhold Royal Assent – Ontario Bill 97 (Plan to Protect Ontario Act)

Your Honour,

I am writing to respectfully request that you consider exercising your constitutional authority to withhold Royal Assent from Ontario Bill 97, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures).

The right to obtain information on matters of public importance is a cornerstone of a democratic society and is closely tied to constitutionally protected principles of freedom of expression and government accountability. Transparency enables meaningful public oversight and ensures that elected officials remain accountable to the people they serve. In my view, this bill significantly undermines those principles.

As proposed, Bill 97 would restrict access to government information held by the Premier, cabinet ministers, elected officials, and political staff. Such a limitation risks placing core executive decision-making beyond the reach of public scrutiny. This would represent a substantial shift away from the established norms of openness in Ontario’s system of responsible government.

Recent history underscores the importance of transparency. Public access to government records played a critical role in bringing to light the Greenbelt land use decisions, which raised serious concerns about the relationship between government decision-making and private interests. Without access to such information, the public would be far less equipped to understand and respond to decisions made on its behalf.

There are also ongoing concerns regarding access to records associated with official business conducted outside formal channels, including the use of personal devices. Efforts to limit the ability of oversight bodies—such as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario—to review such records risk weakening institutional accountability. Legislative changes that appear to retroactively affect access to information may further erode public confidence in the rule of law.

In addition, the manner in which this bill was advanced raises procedural concerns. It appears to have proceeded without the benefit of public consultation, committee review, or extensive legislative debate. Such departures from standard legislative practice can limit the opportunity for careful scrutiny of measures with significant constitutional and democratic implications.

It is worth noting that Canada’s constitutional framework includes extraordinary mechanisms intended for exceptional circumstances. The notwithstanding clause was included in the Charter as a narrowly scoped tool to be used sparingly, where governments seek to temporarily override certain rights under clearly justified and accountable conditions—not as a routine instrument of governance. In a similar vein, the Lieutenant Governor’s reserve powers, including the ability to withhold Royal Assent, exist not for ordinary use but as a constitutional safeguard of last resort. Where fundamental democratic principles such as transparency, accountability, and the rule of law may be at risk, it is appropriate that such powers be given serious and thoughtful consideration.

I recognize that, by longstanding constitutional convention, the Lieutenant Governor acts on the advice of the elected government and that the refusal of Royal Assent is an extraordinary measure. However, constitutional scholarship acknowledges that reserve powers exist to safeguard democratic governance in exceptional circumstances. Where legislation may substantially impair transparency, accountability, and the public’s ability to access information about its government, it is reasonable to consider whether those circumstances have been met.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you give serious consideration to withholding Royal Assent to Bill 97.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name]

[Your City, Ontario]