Bill 19 replaces subsections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Auditor General Act to require provincial ministries, agencies, Crown‑controlled corporations and recipients of government grants to provide the Auditor General with information the Auditor General considers necessary — even when those documents are confidential or protected by various legal privileges.
The change explicitly states that the Auditor General’s right of access applies despite privacy rules, solicitor‑client privilege, litigation privilege, settlement privilege and public interest immunity, and it gives the office free access to books, accounts, electronic records and other papers. That shifts where disputes about privileged or sensitive records are decided and creates immediate compliance and data‑handling obligations for a wide range of provincial actors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill re‑enacts the Auditor General Act’s access provisions so the Auditor General may demand and inspect documents and electronic records the office deems necessary, even if those materials are marked confidential or subject to legal privilege. It names specific privileges (solicitor‑client, litigation, settlement) and public interest immunity that will not block access.
Who It Affects
Ontario ministries, agencies of the Crown, Crown‑controlled corporations and any organization that receives provincial grant funding must respond to Auditor General requests; government lawyers, contractors and third parties whose materials are held by those bodies will be directly impacted. The Auditor General’s office gains clearer statutory authority to obtain and inspect records.
Why It Matters
The amendment reduces the ability of provincial entities to rely on traditional confidentiality shields to resist audit inquiries, potentially speeding oversight and uncovering information previously insulated from review. At the same time, it raises novel operational, legal and privacy issues for officials responsible for managing and disclosing sensitive materials.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill repackages the Auditor General’s access powers in blunt, statutory language. It tells four categories of entities — ministries, Crown agencies, Crown‑controlled corporations and grant recipients — to supply whatever information the Auditor General believes is necessary to carry out her duties.
The list of required information is broad and tied to functions (powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions and business methods), which gives the office latitude to pursue operational and financial reviews across program areas.
Most consequentially, the bill removes common statutory and doctrinal barriers to disclosure. It states that the duty to provide information applies even if the materials would otherwise be confidential or protected by solicitor‑client, litigation or settlement privilege.
It further declares that, despite privacy or other privileges — spelled out to include public interest immunity — the Auditor General is entitled to free access to books, accounts, financial and electronic records, reports, files and other papers the office considers necessary. That phrasing signals an intent to eliminate privilege as a routine obstacle to audits.The text does not set out procedural limits or special handling rules for sensitive material.
There is no express requirement for in‑camera review by a court or third party, no narrow threshold for what is ‘‘necessary’’, and no obligation for the Auditor General to maintain confidentiality beyond ordinary administrative practice. The power also explicitly covers electronic data processing records, which pushes agencies to prepare for search, extraction and secure transfer of large digital data sets.Practically, affected organizations will need internal processes to locate, review and produce privileged or confidential material on demand.
That creates immediate burdens for legal counsels and records managers: deciding what must be produced, preserving chain of custody, and protecting personal or commercially sensitive information once it leaves the custody of the producing body. Those operational burdens are likely to generate disputes that end up before the courts, where judges will be asked to reconcile this statute with established principles protecting privilege and privacy.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Bill 19 repeals and replaces subsections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Auditor General Act with expanded access language.
It requires ministries, Crown agencies, Crown‑controlled corporations and grant recipients to provide information ‘even if’ the documents are confidential or subject to solicitor‑client, litigation or settlement privilege.
The bill expressly states the Auditor General’s entitlement applies ‘despite’ privacy rights, confidentiality or privilege, and it names public interest immunity alongside solicitor‑client, litigation and settlement privileges.
The Auditor General is granted ‘free access’ to a wide list of material, including books, accounts, financial and electronic data processing records, reports and all other papers used by the specified bodies.
The Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent; there are no phased implementation dates or transitional procedures in the text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Duty to furnish information; scope tied to Auditor General's judgment
This substituted provision lists the categories of entities that must furnish information and specifies the types of information (powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions and business methods). The operative trigger for disclosure is the Auditor General’s judgment that the material is necessary, which creates a subjective standard: the office decides what it needs and the recipient must comply. That delegative phrasing shortens the administrative path to information but seeds potential disputes about the boundaries of ‘necessary’ material.
Express override of privileges and entitlement to inspect records
This clause declares that, ‘despite any other rights of privacy, confidentiality or privilege,’ including solicitor‑client privilege, litigation privilege, settlement privilege and public interest immunity, the Auditor General may access a detailed list of records and items. The text’s explicit enumeration of privileges signals a legislative intent to make those doctrines insufficient to block audits. Practically, the provision expands the AG’s power to inspect and copy physical and electronic records and undercuts typical legal objections used to resist disclosure during audits.
Immediate effect on Royal Assent
The act becomes effective on the day it receives Royal Assent. Because there is no delayed entry into force or transitional regime, organizations that hold privileged or privacy‑sensitive records must be prepared to comply as soon as the law is in force. That immediacy raises operational urgency for record‑keeping, secure data extraction capability and legal posture.
Short title codified
This short provision sets the act’s short title as the Auditor General Amendment Act, 2022. It has no substantive legal effect but identifies the amendment for citation and statutory indexing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Office of the Auditor General — Gains clearer statutory authority to demand and inspect documents (including electronically stored information) without routine privilege or confidentiality objections, strengthening investigative and audit capacity.
- Members of the Legislative Assembly and oversight committees — Receive a more reliable channel to obtain audited facts and analyses that support legislative scrutiny and public accountability.
- Ontario taxpayers and public‑interest organizations — Stand to benefit from potentially faster, deeper audits that can expose mismanagement, inefficient spending or program failures that previously might have been shielded by privilege.
Who Bears the Cost
- Provincial ministries and Crown corporations — Face increased compliance burdens: locating and producing large volumes of potentially privileged and privacy‑sensitive records, and handling the operational impact of expanded production obligations.
- Grant recipients (including NGOs, service providers and institutions receiving provincial funds) — Must produce documents they might have treated as confidential, creating governance, contractual and reputational risks for those organizations.
- Government legal counsel and legal services — Lose a routine tool (solicitor‑client privilege) for protecting strategic legal advice and settlement positions, which may chill candor or increase litigation risk and transactional costs.
- Individuals and third parties whose personal or commercially sensitive information is held by provincial bodies — Face greater risk of disclosure because the text overrides privacy and confidentiality claims without prescribing special protections or redaction procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate public interests against each other: the need for robust, timely oversight of public money and operations versus the safeguard that privilege, confidentiality and privacy provide to candid legal advice, sensitive negotiations and individual rights. Strengthening audit access improves transparency but risks undermining the protections that help government entities operate effectively and protect private information.
Two implementation challenges stand out. First, the bill gives the Auditor General broad, discretionary authority — materials must be produced when the Auditor General ‘believes’ they are necessary.
That subjective standard contains no statutory guardrails (no proportionality test, no minimization requirement, no in‑camera or judicial review procedure before production), which increases the likelihood of contested production orders and subsequent litigation to define the outer limits of the power.
Second, the statutory override of solicitor‑client, litigation and settlement privileges and public interest immunity raises doctrinal and practical questions. In Canadian law, solicitor‑client privilege is an important protection of the legal process; courts have generally required clear legislative language to abrogate it and will scrutinize any statutory interference with confidentiality.
The bill’s explicit language lowers one banner against disclosure but does not prescribe how the office must handle truly sensitive legal or personal information once obtained. That absence creates operational risks: ministries must decide how to collect and transfer materials securely, grant recipients must reconcile contractual confidentiality clauses, and third parties may seek judicial relief — all while the Auditor General proceeds with audits.
Finally, the bill does not address cross‑statute tensions (for example with Ontario’s information‑protection or disclosure regimes) or cross‑jurisdictional complications if records involve federal partners or federally privileged material. Those unresolved points will likely be worked out in practice through policies, intergovernmental negotiation and litigation, not by the text of the amendment itself.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.