Bill 75 establishes the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat as a standing ministry to plan, contract and manage the multi‑year restoration, refurbishment and preservation of the Ontario Legislative Building and its systems. The Minister in charge may enter contracts in the name of the Crown, appoint a Deputy Minister, stand up advisory bodies and an executive project working group, and must identify temporary premises to keep the Assembly functioning during works.
The bill also amends the Legislative Assembly Act to change composition rules for the Board of Internal Economy, permit the Board or Speaker to delegate powers to a Minister for restoration preparations, clarify the Legislative Protective Service’s role beyond the precinct, and authorize regulations that can redefine the “legislative precinct” or create a controlled restoration zone. Crucially, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is amended to exempt Assembly‑prepared records related to the restoration from FOI requests until 20 years after the Secretariat statute is repealed, shifting transparency and oversight dynamics for the project.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a permanent ministry—the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat—and vests its Minister with authority to manage the restoration project, sign Crown contracts and organize temporary relocation of the Legislative Assembly. It gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council power to redefine the legislative precinct and to designate a ‘restoration zone’ under Ministerial control, and adds a 20‑year FOI exemption for Assembly records tied to the project.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Office of the Assembly (Clerk, Speaker), the Board of Internal Economy, the Legislative Protective Service, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, contractors and heritage consultants bidding on work, and anyone seeking access to restoration-related records. Municipalities and property owners inside any designated restoration zone may face new controls during the project.
Why It Matters
The bill centralizes project authority in a cabinet minister and a new Secretariat to speed delivery and coordinate relocation, while changing oversight levers (Board composition, delegation and reporting). The FOI carve‑out substantially narrows public access to documents for the long term, creating a different transparency baseline than typical provincial projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act establishes the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat as a ministry, staffed under public service rules, headed by a Minister and supported by a Deputy Minister appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Secretariat’s core job is to run the Queen’s Park Restoration Project: restoring the Legislative Building, its systems and grounds, and arranging everything needed to keep the Legislative Assembly operating while work proceeds.
To do that, the Minister can enter contracts for the Crown and must identify and prepare temporary premises for Assembly business.
Operationally the Act builds a project governance layer: the Minister must create an executive project working group that includes the Minister, the Deputy Minister and a Board of Internal Economy representative, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Minister may create additional advisory committees with appointed members. The Minister must consult a Standing Committee of the Assembly on general plans and provide periodic progress reports and, specifically to the Board of Internal Economy, at least quarterly progress reports.
The Board’s advice must be considered and, if the Minister declines a Board request, the Minister must report back explaining the refusal.The Legislative Assembly Act changes adjust how the Board of Internal Economy is composed (adding alternate commissioners and parity mechanics between government and opposition appointees) and expressly permits the Board, the Speaker and the Minister to delegate or subdelegate powers for restoration preparations—moving certain operational control from internal Assembly governance toward Ministers and their Deputies. The Legislative Protective Service’s mandate is clarified and expanded to permit protection work outside the precinct under agreement or Speaker direction, and the Speaker may in their discretion publish guidelines or directives issued to that service.Regulatory powers let the Lieutenant Governor in Council temporarily redefine what counts as the legislative precinct or create a bespoke “legislative precinct restoration zone,” which the Minister will control while those regulations are in force.
After the Minister reports the project as complete, the relevant Standing Committee must study the project’s completeness and recommend repeal of any spent provisions, including drafting repeal legislation if appropriate. Finally, the FOI statute amendment removes FOI access to records prepared by the Assembly for the restoration until twenty years after the Secretariat statute is repealed, meaning document access is not simply tied to project completion but to a later statutory trigger.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must provide the Board of Internal Economy with progress reports at least once every three months.
The FOI exemption bars disclosure of Assembly‑prepared restoration records until 20 years after the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023 is repealed, not simply after project completion.
The Board of Internal Economy’s composition is altered to include alternate commissioners and to ensure parity between government and non‑government appointees; quorum requires the Speaker plus one government and one opposition commissioner (or their alternates).
The Act authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate a ‘legislative precinct restoration zone’ and to change the statutory definition of the legislative precinct by regulation, placing zones under Ministerial control while in force.
Section 9 bars most proceedings against Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Secretariat employees for acts done in good faith under the Act (juridical exceptions include judicial review and actions by the Crown or Speaker), while preserving Crown vicarious liability.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishment, leadership and staffing of the Secretariat
The Schedule creates the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat as a ministry with a Minister in charge and a Deputy Minister appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; employees are appointed under the provincial public service rules. The practical consequence is a stable institutional home with delegated public service authority to hire project staff and contractors in the Crown’s name.
Contracting, project governance and advisory bodies
The Minister may enter into any contracts the Minister considers advisable for project delivery and may direct public servants to enter contracts for the Crown. The Minister must form an executive project working group and may establish additional advisory committees (with remuneration set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council). Those provisions centralize contracting authority while providing formal channels for advice and external expertise.
Consultation and reporting obligations
The Minister must consult a Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on general plans and provide regular updates; the Board of Internal Economy must be consulted and given progress reports at least quarterly. The Minister is required to take Board advice into consideration and to explain in writing when the Minister does not implement a Board request—creating a documented accountability trail even as decision‑making is concentrated in the Minister’s office.
Liability protections and delegations
The Act shields current and former Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Secretariat staff and Assembly employees from most civil proceedings for acts done in good faith under the statute, while preserving judicial review rights and Crown vicarious liability. It also permits written delegations and subdelegations of the Minister’s powers to Deputies, public servants or Crown agents, enabling operational flexibility but complicating lines of political and legal accountability.
Board of Internal Economy composition and power to delegate to Ministers
Section 87 of the Legislative Assembly Act is replaced to set out a new formula for commissioners and alternate commissioners, with explicit parity mechanics between government and non‑government caucus appointees and a quorum definition. The Board may, in writing, delegate powers related to preparing for restoration to a Minister, and the Speaker may subdelegate powers—effectively allowing traditional Assembly financial or facility authorities to be exercised through executive branch actors for the restoration.
Legislative Protective Service and publication discretion
The Legislative Protective Service’s mandate is clarified to cover security and access control both inside and, by agreement or Speaker directive, outside the precinct. The Speaker may choose to publish guidelines or directives issued to that Service. Practically, the move expands the legal and operational scope of parliamentary security during relocation and construction phases.
FOI exemption for restoration records
Amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act create an explicit exemption: the Act will not apply to records prepared by the Assembly with respect to the restoration project until twenty years after the Secretariat statute is repealed. That timing is unusual because disclosure is tied to a future repeal event, not simply to project completion or a fixed clock tied to project milestones.
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
- Minister and Secretariat — Gains centralized authority to plan, contract and operate the restoration project, including control over temporary relocation and the ability to restructure precinct boundaries by regulation.
- Board of Internal Economy — Receives a formal advisory role, scheduled progress reporting and alternate commissioners to ensure continuity and representation in decision‑making during the works.
- Legislative Protective Service and Speaker — Obtain clearer statutory authority to operate beyond the precinct and discretion to publish directives, strengthening operational security and command for relocation periods.
- Heritage contractors, consultants and construction firms — Stand to benefit commercially from a single, large‑scale procurement program administered in the Crown’s name by the Secretariat.
Who Bears the Cost
- Members of the public and transparency advocates — Face a long FOI blackout on Assembly‑prepared restoration records until 20 years after repeal, limiting timely public scrutiny.
- Opposition MLAs and watchdogs — Will have reduced direct control over some operational powers due to delegation options that move authority to Ministers and Deputies during the restoration.
- Office of the Assembly (Clerk) and Assembly staff — Must coordinate relocation logistics, additional reporting and consultation demands, and may incur administrative burdens without clear additional resourcing in the statute.
- Municipalities and property owners inside any designated restoration zone — May be subject to regulatory controls or operational restrictions while the Minister controls the restoration zone.
- Provincial treasury/Crown — Assumes financial exposure for contracts entered in the name of the Crown and remains vicariously liable for acts of Secretariat employees, even as individual officials enjoy procedural shields.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves one problem—complex, time‑bound heritage restoration requires centralized authority and streamlined procurement—by concentrating power in a Ministerial Secretariat and limiting document access; the corresponding cost is reduced transparency and a shift in democratic oversight from Assembly structures to executive control, a trade‑off between delivery speed and public accountability.
The Act threads a difficult implementation path: it centralizes contracting and operational authority in a Ministerial Secretariat while creating formal consultation and reporting obligations. That design speeds decision‑making and simplifies procurement, but it also shifts day‑to‑day control away from traditional Assembly‑level governance and into the executive branch via written delegations and subdelegations.
The statutory liability shield for officials narrows the legal risk to individuals, but because the Crown remains vicariously liable and judicial review is preserved, the practical allocation of legal and political responsibility will turn on how delegations and contracts are executed in practice.
The FOI amendment presents a notable transparency trade‑off. By tying access to Assembly‑prepared restoration records to the future repeal of the Secretariat statute (with a 20‑year delay), the law allows a long period during which public access is unavailable and leaves open when or whether that repeal will occur.
The text also leaves ambiguity about the scope of ‘records prepared by the Assembly and provided to an institution’—for example, whether third‑party contractor reports or consultant analyses are included when provided to other institutions—and that ambiguity will matter for access requests and oversight. Finally, the regulation power to redefine the legislative precinct or assemble a restoration zone concentrates territorial control in the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Minister, which streamlines operational needs but raises coordination issues with municipal authorities and with parties who normally rely on statutory precinct boundaries for access, protest or service delivery.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.