Summary#

Bill 78, the Commissioner for Democratic Rights Act, 2025, would create a new law and a new office within the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Its stated goal is to strengthen democratic processes and support fair and equal access to voting; these are aims, not guaranteed results.

• The Assembly would appoint the Commissioner. Unless the Assembly unanimously decides otherwise, the appointee must first be selected unanimously by a panel with one member from each recognized party, chaired by the Speaker.
• The Commissioner would have a five-year term and could be reappointed once. The Commissioner could appoint a deputy and hire other employees needed for the office.
• The Commissioner must monitor barriers to voting; review legislation, regulations and government actions for their effects on democratic rights and processes; and review and report on provincial interventions in local government structures, councils and elections.
• The Commissioner must promote civic education, encourage democratic participation and support special reports to the Assembly on democracy in Ontario. The Commissioner may recommend legislative or policy changes.
• For these functions, the Commissioner may examine any person on oath, conduct an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, 2009, or conduct investigations. The Act would start 12 months after Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Voters and the public: The bill does not directly change voting rules, create a new individual right to vote, or require people to take part in the Commissioner’s work. It would create an office whose duties include monitoring barriers to voting and promoting civic education and participation.
• Provincial and local governments: The Commissioner must review certain provincial actions and interventions affecting local government structures, councils and elections. The bill does not set a schedule or process for those reviews.
• People the Commissioner examines: The Commissioner may examine any person on oath in relation to the office’s functions. The bill does not set out the full procedures or limits for these examinations and investigations.
• The Legislative Assembly: It would appoint the Commissioner and may determine remuneration and expenses, but only if money has been appropriated. The Assembly may also order the Commissioner to stay in office until a successor is appointed.

Money#

The bill provides for an office and staff, but no cost estimate is included in the supplied material.

• The office may include employees the Commissioner considers necessary. The bill gives no staffing number or budget.
• The Legislature may determine remuneration and expenses for people in the office, but that authority applies only if the Legislature has appropriated money for it.
• No publicly available information on expected setup or annual operating costs is included in the supplied material.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not define terms such as “barriers to voting” or “democratic rights and processes.”
• It does not set out how reviews, investigations or recommendations would be started, conducted or reported, or whether anyone could appeal a decision.
• The bill says section 18 of the Ombudsman Act applies to investigations, with necessary changes. The supplied material does not include that section, so its effect cannot be verified here.
• The bill allows an inquiry under section 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009. The supplied material does not include that section, so the inquiry’s detailed powers and procedures cannot be verified here.
• No publicly available information is included on funding, staffing levels, or how the office’s work would relate to existing oversight or election bodies.

Case for#

• The bill would give the Assembly a dedicated officer to monitor barriers to voting and review government actions for their effects on democratic rights and processes.
• An appointment process requiring unanimous agreement across recognized parties could support confidence in the Commissioner’s independence. The Assembly could use a unanimous vote to choose a different process.
• The Commissioner could examine people on oath and conduct investigations or inquiries, giving the office tools to look into issues within its remit.
• The Commissioner could recommend changes to laws or policies, while leaving decisions about whether to adopt them to others.

Case against#

• The bill gives the Commissioner a broad remit but does not define key terms or explain how issues would be chosen and handled.
• It gives the Commissioner investigative and inquiry powers without setting out their detailed procedures in this Act. The effect depends in part on other laws.
• The bill creates staffing and operating needs but includes no cost estimate or specified budget.
• The unanimous selection requirement could make agreement on an appointment difficult; the bill allows the Assembly to use a different process only by unanimous consent.