Ontario Makes Chief Medical Officer Independent

Summary#

Bill 62, the Public Health Accountability Act (In Honour of Dr. Sheela Basrur), 2025, would amend Ontario’s Health Protection and Promotion Act. Its title points to public health accountability as its aim; the bill would change how the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) is appointed, serves and can be removed, and create a committee during certain declared emergencies.

  • The Legislative Assembly would appoint the CMOH for a five-year term, with the option of one further five-year term. Normally, a cross-party panel must unanimously select the person first; the Assembly can decide unanimously to use a different process.
  • The CMOH would become an officer of the Assembly. Removal or suspension by the Assembly would require a two-thirds vote and cause (a stated reason); when the Assembly is not in session, its Board of Internal Economy could unanimously suspend the CMOH for cause, subject to time limits and later reporting.
  • The bill sets out rules for temporary CMOHs, who would have the CMOH’s powers and duties. It also sets the CMOH’s salary and benefits through the Board of Internal Economy, and makes membership in the Public Service Pension Plan the default unless the CMOH opts out within 60 days.
  • The Associate CMOH would perform duties the CMOH specifies in writing.
  • For a qualifying declared emergency, the Assembly must appoint a select committee as soon as reasonably possible. It would receive advice from, and provide advice to, the CMOH about the situation that led to the declaration.

What it means for you#

  • For the public: The bill changes public health leadership and advice arrangements. It does not itself create a new public service, public right, tax, fee or fine.
  • For the CMOH: The office would have a fixed term, and the CMOH would take an oath or affirmation. The CMOH could not be an MPP or hold other work without approval, with an exception for other offices appointed by the Assembly or Board.
  • For the Assembly and its Board: They would take on appointment, removal or suspension, salary and benefits, and temporary-appointment responsibilities.
  • For people affected by an emergency: The committee’s stated role is to exchange advice with the CMOH. The bill does not require it to hold public hearings, issue reports or make decisions about emergency measures.

Money#

The bill assigns salary, benefits and approved expense costs, but the available material gives no cost estimate.

  • The Board of Internal Economy would set the CMOH’s salary and benefits and approve reimbursement of reasonable expenses.
  • A temporary CMOH would also receive salary, benefits and approved expense reimbursement, with amounts set by the Board.
  • The bill does not state how many staff or how much funding the new responsibilities would require.

What is unclear#

  • The current Health Protection and Promotion Act was not supplied, so I could not verify the existing appointment system or the precise effects of repealing section 86.3 and changing section 86.4.
  • The bill does not explain what happens if the selection panel cannot agree. It allows the Assembly to decide unanimously on a different process, but does not set another fallback.
  • The bill does not define “cause” for suspension or removal.
  • It does not specify the select committee’s size, how it would operate, or whether its advice must be made public.
  • The bill does not explain how the new rules interact with existing public health roles and processes.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that making the CMOH an officer of the Assembly, with a fixed term and removal only for cause, could support independence from day-to-day government decisions.
  • Cross-party selection and a high vote threshold for removal could encourage broad agreement on who holds the office and make removal harder to use for political reasons.
  • A temporary appointment process could help keep the office filled if the CMOH cannot serve or the position becomes vacant.
  • A committee that exchanges advice with the CMOH during certain emergencies could create a formal channel for legislative input.

Case against#

  • The bill relies on unanimous agreement by the selection panel unless the Assembly unanimously chooses another route. If the panel is deadlocked, the bill does not provide a less-than-unanimous fallback.
  • The bill does not define “cause,” which could leave uncertainty about the grounds for suspending or removing the CMOH.
  • The committee’s role is limited to receiving and providing advice. The bill does not require public reporting or explain how the committee’s work would be open to scrutiny.
  • The bill assigns salary, benefits, expense and staffing responsibilities without giving cost estimates or explaining how the work would be resourced.