Bill 47 amends The Apprenticeship and Certification Act to require the executive director to create an online public registry for persons who hold certificates under the Act and to authorize sharing information with approved service providers.
The change aims to make credential verification easier for employers and the public but also introduces immediate privacy and administrative issues for the executive director, approved training organizations, and certificants because the bill leaves key details to regulations and ties “personal information” to Manitoba’s FOIP framework.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts two new definitions (approved service provider; personal information), adds approved service providers to the list of parties who may receive information, replaces the current limit on sharing personal data with a requirement to limit disclosures to the minimum necessary, and creates a new section requiring an online registry. The registry must be established within 60 days of the section coming into force and contain prescribed information about certificate holders and other prescribed classes.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include journeypersons and occupational certificate holders in designated trades and occupations, the executive director (Apprenticeship branch), educational institutions and organizations that enter into agreements as approved service providers, employers and consumers who will use the registry, and privacy/compliance officers who must reconcile publication with FOIP obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill takes an operational step toward transparent credentialing that reduces friction in hiring and public verification while centralizing credential data. At the same time, it shifts discretionary power to the executive director and to future regulations, creating implementation risk around privacy, the scope of published information, and the standards for approving service providers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act receives four targeted changes. First, the bill adds two definitions: it creates an “approved service provider” category for educational institutions, corporations or organizations that contract with the executive director to deliver technical training or related services, and it defines “personal information” by reference to Manitoba’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).
Those definitions both broaden who can receive information under the Act and tie any handling of personal data to FOIP concepts.
Second, the bill amends the disclosure provisions to explicitly allow the executive director to share information with approved service providers. At the same time it replaces the existing limitation on disclosures with a new rule: when personal information is provided, the executive director must limit the amount disclosed to the minimum required for the statutory purpose.
That creates a legally binding “minimum necessary” standard but leaves the scope of what is minimal to be determined in practice.Third, the bill adds a new, stand‑alone registry requirement. Within 60 days after that section comes into force, the executive director must establish an online registry that lets the public confirm the qualifications of people subject to the Act.
The registry must contain “prescribed information” about certificate of qualification holders, holders of occupational certificates in designated occupations, and any other prescribed classes. What exactly is published, how records are structured, and which additional classes are included will be set out in regulations.Finally, the bill expands regulation‑making authority specifically to address the registry.
It authorizes regulations about the content of the registry and about adding classes of people who must be listed. The Act comes into force on royal assent; the 60‑day clock for the registry starts from that moment.
Overall, the bill replaces discretionary, internal information sharing with a statutory transparency tool and a FOIP‑linked privacy constraint, but delegates many practical choices to subordinate instruments and administrative practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds two defined terms: “approved service provider” (institutions, corporations or organizations having agreements with the executive director) and “personal information” (as defined in FOIP).
It amends section 42 to allow the executive director to share information with approved service providers and replaces the old disclosure limit with a mandatory “minimum amount required” standard for personal data disclosures.
It creates a new section 42.1 requiring an online public registry to be established within 60 days that must include prescribed information about certificate of qualification holders, occupational certificate holders, and other prescribed classes.
Regulations may specify the exact information the registry contains and may add additional classes of persons to be listed; those powers are added as clause 46(1)(r.1).
The Act’s privacy control ties published personal information to FOIP and imposes a minimum‑necessary test, but the bill does not define “prescribed information,” leave approval criteria for service providers, or set rules for accuracy, correction or takedown of registry entries.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds ‘approved service provider’ and links ‘personal information’ to FOIP
This section inserts two definitions into the Act. Defining “approved service provider” creates a statutory category for entities that will receive data and perform training or related services under contract. Defining “personal information” by reference to The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act aligns any data handling obligations under the Apprenticeship Act with Manitoba’s broader privacy law, but it also imports FOIP’s terms, exceptions and interpretive framework into apprenticeship administration.
Permits disclosure to approved service providers and imposes a ‘minimum necessary’ rule
Clause 42(1)(a) is amended to add approved service providers to the list of permitted recipients. Subsection 42(2) is replaced so that while personal information may be included in disclosures, the executive director must restrict disclosures to the minimum amount necessary for the statutory purpose. Practically, administrators will need policies and decision templates to justify what is “minimum” on a case‑by‑case basis, and those decisions will be reviewable under FOIP’s principles.
Creates an online public registry with a 60‑day establishment deadline
The new section 42.1 requires the executive director to set up an online registry within 60 days that lets the public confirm specified qualifications. The registry must contain information prescribed by regulation about certificate of qualification holders, occupational certificate holders, and any other prescribed class. The short deadline pressures the Apprenticeship branch to prioritize scope, UX and privacy controls, and it places the burden of operational design squarely on administration rather than legislative detail.
Gives regulation power over registry content and included classes
This provision authorizes regulations “respecting the registry,” explicitly naming the information to be contained and allowing addition of classes of persons to the registry. That means many substantive decisions—what fields appear, whether registration numbers, expiry dates, or contact details are published, and which non‑certificants must be listed—will be made by regulation rather than by statute, increasing the importance of regulatory drafting and stakeholder consultation.
Commencement on royal assent
The Act comes into force on assent, and the 60‑day clock for establishing the registry begins from that date. There is no transitional language, staged roll‑out or phased compliance; the statute expects the executive director to operationalize the registry immediately, which could require reallocation of resources or temporary measures to meet the deadline.
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
- Employers and contractors — they gain a single, public verification point to confirm journeyperson status and occupational certificates, reducing time and risk in hiring and contract compliance.
- Members of the public and clients — easier access to credential information helps consumers and project owners verify qualifications before hiring tradespeople or contractors.
- Approved service providers (training institutions, colleges, training corporations) — the statutory authority to receive necessary information supports coordination of training, credentialing and reporting with the Apprenticeship branch.
- Regulatory and inspection bodies — a central registry supports oversight, audit and enforcement by making holdings and scopes of certification easier to identify.
- Certificants with verified credentials — individuals who maintain qualifications gain visibility and can benefit commercially from public confirmation of their status.
Who Bears the Cost
- Executive director / Apprenticeship branch — must design, build and maintain the registry, draft policies to implement the minimum‑necessary test, and bear operational and cybersecurity costs on a short timeline.
- Privacy and compliance officers (government and approved providers) — must update collection, consent, retention and disclosure practices to align with FOIP and the new minimum‑necessary standard.
- Approved service providers and smaller training organizations — will need to negotiate agreements, implement secure data transfers and possibly modify records management to supply prescribed data.
- Individual certificants — may face broader public exposure of personal or professional details and the administrative burden of correcting inaccuracies on a public platform.
- Employers or third parties relying on the registry — if the registry is incomplete or contains stale information, those users may incur operational costs to verify or manage reliance risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between public transparency for credential verification (reducing fraud and easing hiring) and individual privacy plus administrative feasibility: the statute demands quick, public disclosure while simultaneously requiring the executive director to limit personal information to the minimum necessary and to comply with FOIP—two obligations that will frequently pull in opposite directions and require hard choices about what to publish, to whom, and how to govern access and corrections.
The bill resolves a practical verification problem by mandating a public registry, but it leaves critical implementation details to regulations and administrative practice. The “minimum amount required” restriction creates a legal standard for privacy‑protective disclosures, yet the bill provides no criteria for what counts as minimal in particular contexts (e.g., training enrolment vs. employment vetting).
That ambiguity will drive FOIP requests and potentially litigation unless the executive director issues clear, auditable policies quickly.
The 60‑day deadline compresses what is fundamentally an IT, records‑management and privacy project into an operational sprint. Without transitional provisions or phased publication rules, the branch may publish a limited, high‑risk dataset to meet the deadline or delay useful functionality while building appropriate safeguards.
The power to make regulations about registry content and included classes centralizes discretion; poorly calibrated regulations could broaden disclosure beyond what members expect, or conversely, limit usefulness by omitting essential verification fields. Finally, the bill does not address accuracy correction processes, takedown procedures, or liability for incorrect listings—practical gaps that will affect both individual rights and institutional risk exposure.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.