Bill 29 overhauls governance at the University of Winnipeg. It shrinks the Board of Regents, redefines how members are chosen, imposes term limits, requires a conflict-of-interest by-law with mandatory disclosure and public filing of disclosures, and directs the board to adopt rules on open and in-camera meetings.
The bill also mandates by-laws for an annual performance review of the university president with provision for external reviews and sets a coming-into-force date of July 1, 2026.
These changes reallocate authority inside the university and create several new compliance duties for the board and senior administration. Professionals responsible for governance, compliance, legal, and human resources should expect new by-law drafting, public-record handling, procedural changes for meetings, and adjustments to appointment processes (including a specified Indigenous representation requirement among provincial appointees).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill reduces the board from 36 to 21 seats and prescribes the new membership mix, including ten Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees (two identifying as Indigenous). It requires the board to pass a conflict-of-interest by-law that sets out disclosure, withdrawal, and public-record steps, and it makes meetings presumptively open while allowing limited in-camera consideration by 2/3 of the board. It also bars continuous service beyond nine years without a three-year break and requires by-laws for annual and external reviews of the president.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include current and future board members, the university officer charged with maintaining disclosure records, the president of the university, the University of Winnipeg Students' Association Inc., the Alumni Association, the Lieutenant Governor in Council (as appointing authority), and university governance and legal staff tasked with implementing new by-laws and public-record obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the balance toward transparency and accountability at the institutional level while imposing specific composition and expertise expectations for trustees. For counsel and compliance officers, it creates discrete operational tasks—drafting and enforcing by-laws, managing public disclosures, running external presidential reviews, and redesigning meeting procedures—that will have resource and legal implications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill 29 rewrites key governance provisions of The University of Winnipeg Act to create a smaller, more prescriptive board and to introduce statutory rules for conflicts and meeting openness. The board's membership is specified in detail: ex officio officers like the chancellor and president, one alumnus selected by the alumni association, three academic staff elected by the senate, two students chosen by the students' association, three general council appointees, and ten Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees—two of whom must identify as Indigenous.
The bill also adds a statutory prompt that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should select appointees so the board reflects student diversity and has financial and other expertise.
On ethics and transparency, the bill forces the board to adopt a conflict-of-interest by-law. Members who believe they have a conflict must disclose the general nature of it, withdraw from the meeting, and not try to influence deliberations; the meeting minutes must record the disclosure and withdrawal, and a designated university officer must file and make those records available to the public in a manner the officer selects.
Meetings are presumptively open; the board may create by-laws that define categories of business for in-camera sessions, and an in-camera decision requires the support of at least two-thirds of the board's total membership, with the reasons for going in camera noted in the minutes.The bill also limits board tenure to nine consecutive years, after which a three-year hiatus is required before reappointment. It forbids delegating away certain core powers—specifically the authority to enact by-laws and to perform duties that the board must perform by by-law—putting several governance decisions squarely back with the full board.
For senior leadership oversight, the board must adopt by-laws establishing an annual performance review of the president and must provide for external reviews in the years the by-laws specify; the president must be excluded from meetings when their review, objectives, remuneration, or terms of employment are under consideration.Practical details flow from transitional and technical amendments: members holding office under the old Act keep their existing terms, section renumbering and cross-reference changes are made across the statute, Section 38 of the Act is repealed, and the Act comes into force on July 1, 2026. Implementation will require the board and university officers to draft multiple new by-laws and adjust procedures for appointments and meeting administration.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board is cut from 36 seats to 21 with a prescribed composition including ten Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees, two of whom must identify as Indigenous.
Members may serve up to nine consecutive years; after nine years they must wait at least three years before being reappointed or re-elected.
The board must adopt a conflict-of-interest by-law; members who disclose a conflict must withdraw, have the disclosure recorded in the minutes, and have that record filed with a designated officer who must make records public.
All board meetings are presumptively open; the board may by by-law define in-camera categories and require a 2/3 majority of total members to go in camera, with minutes recording the reasons.
The board must create by-laws for an annual performance review of the president and provide for external reviews in the years the by-law specifies, and the president must be excluded from deliberations about their own review or terms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New board size, fixed composition, and diversity/experience considerations
This provision replaces the old membership schedule with a 21-member board and mandates the categories of members (chancellor, president, one alumnus, three academic staff, two students, three general council appointees, and ten Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees). It also adds a statutory direction that LG in C appointments should reflect the diversity of the student body and include appropriate expertise—most plainly financial management experience. Practically, that means appointment processes and vetting must document how candidates address both representational and skills-based criteria.
Targeted edits to eligibility and cross-references
The bill removes certain exclusionary phrases from eligibility and technical cross-references elsewhere in the Act (for example, striking phrases that previously excluded support staff or carved out student members in specific provisions). These are narrowly framed edits that refresh the statute's internal references; they require a careful read-through to ensure election and voting rules in related provisions still function as intended and do not create inadvertent openings or disqualifications.
Re-appointment and nine-year term limit
Section 7 now allows reappointment but caps consecutive service at nine years, after which a prospective board member must be off the board for at least three years. That creates a clear statutory rotation mechanism for trustees. Boards will need to track service lengths and manage succession planning accordingly; the rule also affects staggered terms and the timing of appointments to avoid inadvertent statutory violations.
Conflict-of-interest by-law, disclosure procedure, and open-meeting rules
The new 12.1 requires the board to adopt a conflict-of-interest by-law and sets a three-step procedural floor: disclosure of the general nature of the conflict, withdrawal from meetings without voting or participation, and a prohibition on later efforts to influence the matter. Minutes must capture the disclosure and withdrawal, and a designated officer must file the record and make it publicly available in a manner they choose. Section 12.2 makes meetings presumptively public but allows by-laws to establish categories eligible for in-camera consideration; moving to in-camera requires at least two-thirds of the board's total membership and those reasons must be recorded in the minutes. Those provisions create both a public-access framework and a documented exemption process for sensitive topics.
Restriction on delegation
The amendment to section 16 adds a non-delegable rule: the board cannot delegate authority to enact by-laws or to exercise any power or duty it is required to exercise or perform by by-law. The effect is to reserve certain core governance actions to the board itself rather than to committees or officers; institutions will need to re-evaluate which functions previously delegated must now be handled by the full board or by formally constituted committees with explicit board authority.
Mandatory presidential performance-review by-laws and exclusion rules
The board must adopt by-laws establishing an annual performance review regime for the president and must provide for external reviews in the years the by-law specifies. The board must also make by-laws excluding the president from meetings when the president's review, objectives, remuneration, expenses, or employment terms are under consideration. This creates a formalized process for executive oversight and binds the university to an externally verifiable review program when the board requires it.
Repeal of section 38, transitional protection for serving members, and July 1, 2026 commencement
The Act repeals section 38, contains transitional language preserving the terms of members appointed under the former Act until their terms expire, and sets the Act to come into force on July 1, 2026. The transitional rule reduces immediate disruption to sitting trustees but requires forward planning to ensure incoming appointments and by-laws conform to the new framework once the Act is in force.
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
- Students (University of Winnipeg Students' Association Inc.): Increased transparency in board meetings and formalized representation of two student seats give students clearer procedural access and documented influence on governance.
- Indigenous communities and students: The statute requires two LG in C appointees to identify as Indigenous and asks appointing authorities to consider diversity, creating a structural pathway for Indigenous representation on the board.
- Public and media: Presumptively open meetings and publicly available conflict disclosures improve public scrutiny and reporting opportunities.
- Faculty senators and alumni: The bill preserves elected academic staff seats and an alumni-appointed seat, protecting established channels for internal university constituencies to influence governance while the overall board size shrinks.
- Governance and audit committees: The statutory push for financial management expertise among appointees and non-delegable by-law authority concentrates accountability and should strengthen oversight capabilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- University administration (secretariat, legal, governance): Must draft multiple by-laws, maintain and publish disclosure records, manage public access logistics, and update procedural documents—creating immediate administrative and legal workload and likely new costs.
- Board members and candidates: Face stricter public disclosure obligations, limits on consecutive service, and closer public scrutiny, which may deter some potential appointees or increase recruitment complexity.
- The president of the university: Subject to mandatory annual reviews and external reviews as specified by by-law, and excluded from deliberations about their own terms—creating more formal oversight and potential reputational exposure.
- Lieutenant Governor in Council and appointing bodies: Must adapt appointment processes to satisfy the new diversity and expertise considerations and the explicit Indigenous-identification requirement among the ten provincial appointees.
- IT and records teams: Responsible for making disclosure records publicly available in an appropriate manner and for handling meeting access—potential software, privacy, and operational costs follow.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency and accountability versus board functionality and confidentiality: the Act pushes the university toward public access, disclosure, and rotational membership to reduce insularity, but those same measures risk undermining the board's ability to handle sensitive personnel, legal, or commercial matters efficiently and to retain experienced trustees whose institutional memory supports effective oversight.
The bill advances transparency and clearer governance lines but leaves open several implementation questions that could complicate compliance. The statute requires the designated university officer to make conflict-disclosure records "available to the public in the manner the officer determines to be appropriate," but does not prescribe format, retention periods, redaction rules, or how privacy and personal-information laws intersect with those public-record obligations.
That gap invites uneven implementation and potential privacy or access-to-information disputes. Similarly, the 2/3 threshold to move in camera is tied to "the total number of members of the board," leaving open how vacancies affect the denominator and whether the calculation should use authorized seats or sitting members.
Operationally, the ban on delegating power to enact by-laws or perform duties required by by-law could create bottlenecks. Many boards delegate routine and technical decisions to committees or officers; this provision may force the full board to reclaim decisions that are administrative in nature unless the by-laws explicitly create permitted delegations consistent with the restriction.
Finally, the statute requires two Lieutenant Governor in Council appointees to identify as Indigenous, but it does not set a process for verifying or documenting self-identification, nor does it clarify whether other appointees should be assessed for representational claims. These ambiguities will affect how the appointing authority conducts searches and what evidence of identity or community endorsement it requires.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.