Summary#
Ontario’s Bill 145, the Optometry Amendment Act, 2026, would amend the Optometry Act, 1991. Its stated goal is to authorize College members to perform four additional acts; the bill does not require them to do so.
- College members could provide samples and dispense topical medications (medications applied to the surface of the eye or nearby area).
- They could independently manage open-angle glaucoma.
- They could use diagnostic ultrasound for corneal pachymetry (measuring corneal thickness) or ocular ultrasonography.
- They could remove foreign bodies from below the surface of the cornea.
- If enacted, the Act would start on the day it receives Royal Assent.
What it means for you#
- People seeking eye care: College members would be authorized to perform the listed acts. This could make those services available through them, but the bill does not require any member to offer them.
- College members: They would gain authority to perform the four listed acts. The bill does not set out an application or approval process for individual members.
- General public: The bill does not directly change taxes, create a public benefit, or require a new service to be provided.
- Current law: The Optometry Act, 1991 was not supplied, so I could not verify which related acts are already authorized or how the new wording would interact with existing rules.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not set out spending, fees, fines, or a staffing requirement.
- It gives no estimate of any costs to government, College members, or patients.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not specify which topical medications may be sampled or dispensed, or set out conditions for doing so.
- It does not define “independently manage” or describe limits on managing open-angle glaucoma.
- It does not set out rules, training requirements, oversight, or a complaints process for the added acts; other laws or rules may address these matters, but they were not supplied.
- The existing Act was not provided, so the bill’s effect alongside current permissions and safeguards cannot be verified.
- The bill does not say how many College members would provide these services or whether patients would have access to them.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to let College members provide a wider range of eye-care services.
- A possible argument for the bill is that authorizing these acts could allow patients to receive more types of care from College members.
- The bill names the acts it would authorize, rather than leaving the change as a general statement of purpose.
Case against#
- The bill does not specify medication limits or explain what counts as independently managing glaucoma. That may leave important details to other laws or rules, whose content is not available here.
- The bill authorizes these acts but does not require members to provide them, so it does not guarantee greater patient access.
- Without the current Act, it is unclear how much the bill would change existing practice or how its new permissions would fit with current safeguards.