Bill 27 enacts a Declaration of Principles for Patient Health Care that sets patient‑centred expectations for how health care should be delivered in Manitoba and requires those statements to be publicly posted by government, health authorities, health corporations and regulated health professional colleges. It also requires the government and health organizations to designate patient advocacy resources and publish contact information and complaint avenues.
Separately, the bill amends The Health System Governance and Accountability Act to let the minister share critical‑incident information with the provincial health authority and other health authorities to obtain clinical advice and to help prevent similar incidents. The changes are procedural and declarative rather than creating new private rights or court remedies.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a statutory Declaration of Principles and a set of patient expectations (respect, timely access, community access, safe care, privacy, clear communication, participation, and ability to raise concerns) and requires those statements to be posted online and at care sites. It requires the government to establish an office of patient advocacy, experience and quality and requires health authorities and health care delivery organizations to appoint patient advocacy officers. The amendment to the governance act authorizes the minister to share critical‑incident reports with the provincial health authority and other health authorities for advice and prevention.
Who It Affects
Provincial health department officials, regional health authorities, health care delivery organizations (including health corporations), colleges and associations of regulated health professions, and patients interacting with the public health system—particularly those seeking to raise concerns or complaints. The provincial health authority will receive new reporting access for critical incidents.
Why It Matters
The bill codifies patient‑centred expectations into statute and creates a single, visible entry point for patient advocacy and information about complaint avenues. At the system level, it centralizes clinical review capacity by authorizing information flows to the provincial health authority, which could change how critical incidents are analyzed and systemwide prevention measures are coordinated.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a standalone Declaration of Principles for Patient Health Care that collects a set of patient‑centred norms into statute. Those norms include safety, timely and locally accessible care, treatment without regard to ability to pay, respect for privacy under existing privacy law, and a care experience that acknowledges patients’ perspectives.
The statute is declarative: it tells government and system actors what expectations patients should have and how the system should present those expectations to the public.
Operational requirements attach to the declaration. The government must create an office of patient advocacy, experience and quality inside the health department and must publish contact details and clear information about how patients can ask questions or raise concerns.
Health authorities and health care delivery organizations must appoint one or more patient advocacy officers and post their contact details and how to raise concerns both online and visibly at care sites. Colleges and associations for regulated health professions must similarly post information about their complaint processes where those professions provide care outside health authority facilities.The Act deliberately stops short of creating enforceable private rights.
It contains an explicit clause saying it neither creates nor affects rights or remedies under other laws and that noncompliance does not give rise to a cause of action or court proceeding. That makes the Declaration a statutory statement of expectations and transparency duties rather than a new enforcement mechanism for patients.Amendments to The Health System Governance and Accountability Act add a short power for the minister to provide copies of critical‑incident information received under existing reporting sections to the provincial health authority to obtain clinical and technical advice and to monitor patient safety.
The minister may also provide critical‑incident information to other health authorities for the purpose of preventing similar incidents. These changes are framed as information‑sharing and advice‑seeking rather than as investigatory or disciplinary powers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act requires the government to create an office of patient advocacy, experience and quality within the health department and to publish its contact information and guidance on how to raise concerns.
Health authorities and health care delivery organizations must designate one or more patient advocacy officers and post their contact information both online and in prominent locations where care is delivered.
Colleges and associations for regulated health professions must post clear information about how to make a complaint about a member and ensure those postings appear where members provide care outside health authority facilities.
Section 5 states expressly that the Act does not create or affect rights or remedies and that failure to comply does not give rise to a cause of action or court proceeding.
The Health System Governance and Accountability Act is amended to allow the minister to share critical‑incident reports with the provincial health authority for clinical advice and with other health authorities to aid prevention of similar incidents.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions tied to existing health statutes
This section imports definitions from The Health System Governance and Accountability Act and The Regulated Health Professions Act and defines 'health department', 'health authority' and 'health care delivery organization' for the new Act. That linkage means the new duties apply to entities already defined under Manitoba law rather than creating new categories of regulated actors.
Guiding principles for system decision‑making
The Act lists four guiding principles (quality and safety, reasonable access in line with clinical guidelines, need‑based access not ability to pay, and patient‑centred delivery). These are directional commitments for government decision‑making rather than prescriptive service standards, but they operate as a statutory frame that ministers and health authorities must consider when setting policy.
Statements of expectations and patient engagement; public posting obligations
Section 3 enumerates patient expectations (respect, timely access, community access, safe care, privacy, clear communication, participation and ability to raise concerns) and reciprocal expectations for patients' engagement. Crucially, it requires government, each health authority and each health care delivery organization to post the statements online and in prominent locations where care is delivered—creating a transparency obligation that will require coordinated web and physical signage practices.
Patient assistance structures and information duties
This section requires the health department to host an office of patient advocacy, experience and quality and obliges health authorities and delivery organizations to appoint patient advocacy officers. It also requires public posting of contact information and clear instructions for raising concerns. The practical implication is a new, visible intake and navigation layer for patient complaints and questions, though the Act does not prescribe staffing levels, reporting lines or resolution timelines.
No private cause of action or alteration of existing rights
Section 5 contains two limiting provisions: the Act does not create or affect rights under other laws or common law, and failure to comply does not give rise to a cause of action or proceedings. This preserves existing legal avenues while insulating the new statements and posting duties from litigation as standalone obligations.
Ministerial sharing of critical‑incident reports
The amendment lets the minister share copies of information and reports about critical incidents previously provided to the minister with the provincial health authority for clinical and technical advice and monitoring. It also permits sharing with other health authorities to help prevent similar incidents. The text frames these powers narrowly—focused on advice and prevention—without expanding the minister’s investigatory or disciplinary authority in the statute.
Staggered commencement approach
The main Act and Schedule B have different coming‑into‑force language: the overall Act comes into force on royal assent, Schedule A comes into force by proclamation (a day to be fixed), while Schedule B comes into force on royal assent. That creates an immediate change for critical‑incident sharing but leaves the declaration and its operational duties subject to proclamation timing.
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
- Patients who want clearer routes to raise concerns: the Act centralizes contact points and mandates visible guidance on complaint avenues and advocacy resources, reducing informational barriers to raising issues.
- Patients in smaller or remote communities: the statutory emphasis on community access and the requirement to post community‑access expectations may increase local transparency and put political pressure on authorities to address rural access gaps.
- Provincial health authority: gains statutory authority to receive critical‑incident information and provide system‑level clinical and technical advice, which can strengthen province‑wide learning and prevention efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health department (administration): must create and resource the office of patient advocacy, experience and quality and maintain public guidance—an upfront staffing and coordination cost that is not funded in the text.
- Health authorities and health care delivery organizations: must designate patient advocacy officers, update websites and facility signage, and establish intake processes; those operational and training costs fall to regional bodies and facilities.
- Colleges and associations of regulated health professions: must ensure complaint‑process information is clear and posted where members practice outside authority facilities, creating administrative and communication work for regulatory bodies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between making patient‑centred expectations visible and systemwide learning possible on the one hand, and leaving those commitments non‑justiciable and under‑resourced on the other: the bill increases transparency and information flows but stops short of enforceable standards or funding, so its effectiveness will hinge on implementation choices rather than statutory teeth.
The Act formalizes patient‑centred language and transparency duties without creating enforceable entitlements. That design avoids immediate litigation risk but raises questions about whether the new statutory visibility will translate into operational change.
The obligations to post information and designate advocacy officers are concrete, but the Act does not set service standards, timelines for complaint handling, reporting obligations on outcomes, or funding. Those omissions mean the practical effects will depend heavily on administrative follow‑through and resource allocation, which the statute leaves to the executive.
The amendments authorizing ministerial sharing of critical‑incident material are framed narrowly for advice and prevention, but they interact with privacy and professional regulation regimes. The Act references The Personal Health Information Act for confidentiality, yet it does not specify safeguards, de‑identification standards, retention limits or how information shared across authorities will be secured.
There is also potential duplication with existing college or internal review processes, and the text does not clarify whether the provincial health authority’s advisory role could lead to formal recommendations, public reporting, or triggers for regulatory or disciplinary action by colleges.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.