The Action Plan on Access to Emergency Care Act requires the Minister of Health and Wellness to create and oversee a provincially coordinated Action Plan intended to improve access to safe, reliable and timely care at hospital emergency departments operated by health authorities. The statute mandates consultation with clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and residents with lived experience and requires at least two public meetings in each management zone to inform the plan.
Beyond creating the plan, the Act forces transparency: the Minister must table the plan within one year of the law coming into force and publish it online, and then produce yearly reports that list measures taken, outcomes, total ED closure hours with reasons, specific wait-time metrics and counts of patients who left without being seen. The law creates reporting obligations and public visibility without prescribing specific funding, performance targets, or enforcement mechanisms, shifting the discussion from ad hoc reporting to statutory accountability and public engagement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Minister to establish, oversee and publish an Action Plan on access to emergency care developed through consultations with clinicians and affected residents. It mandates at least two public meetings per management zone, sets a one-year deadline to table the plan, and creates annual reporting duties with specific metrics (closure hours, wait times, reasons for closures and people leaving without being seen).
Who It Affects
Directly affects emergency departments run by health authorities, the Department of Health and Wellness (which must prepare and publish the plan and reports), health authorities and hospital administrators (who must supply closure and wait-time data), clinicians engaged in consultations, and residents in communities that experience temporary ED closures or long waits.
Why It Matters
By transferring planning and transparency requirements into statute, the bill changes how provincial officials and health authorities will be held to account: metrics that were previously intermittent or internal become standardized, publicly available and tied to an official Action Plan informed by regional public input. That makes this measure a potential lever for advocates, planners and clinicians to push system-level changes or demand resources based on publicly disclosed data.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act does two related things: it creates a statutory duty for the Minister to develop a province-wide Action Plan on access to emergency care, and it requires annual, public reporting on key operational metrics. The Action Plan must be created with input from clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and residents who either live in communities affected by frequent temporary ED closures or have experienced long emergency-department wait times themselves.
The law also requires the Minister to hold a minimum of two public meetings in each management zone to gather those perspectives.
The bill sets concrete timing and publication rules: the Minister must table the Action Plan in the House of Assembly within one year of the act coming into force and publish it on the Department of Health and Wellness website within 10 days of tabling or filing. After the plan is in place, the Minister must prepare annual reports that itemize measures taken and their outcomes, the total number of ED closure hours by location with reasons, average wait times measured as arrival-to-triage and triage-to-being-seen by a provider (other than triage), and counts of people leaving without being seen.Practically speaking, implementation will require health authorities and hospitals to collect and submit standardized data on closures, reasons and wait-time intervals if they do not already do so.
The Act applies only to emergency departments operated by health authorities as defined in the Health Authorities Act, so privately run emergency services (if any) are not in scope. The Act does not create statutory performance targets, funding commitments, or enforcement penalties; it relies on transparency and public consultation as levers for change.Because the Act becomes effective January 1, 2027, the Minister and health authorities face a compressed window to organize consultations across management zones, define reporting formats, and build the data-collection processes necessary to produce the required Action Plan and the first annual report on the schedule the Act contemplates.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must hold at least two public meetings in each provincial management zone to gather input for the Action Plan.
The Minister must table the Action Plan within one year of the Act coming into force and publish it online within 10 days of tabling or filing.
Annual reporting must include: measures taken and outcomes; total ED closure hours for each location with reasons; average wait times from arrival-to-triage and triage-to-being-seen (excluding triage time as 'being seen'); and counts of people who left without being seen.
The Act applies specifically to emergency departments operated by health authorities (as defined in the Health Authorities Act) and ties reporting responsibility to the Minister of Health and Wellness.
The Act takes effect January 1, 2027, creating a defined one-year window for the first Action Plan and immediate data and consultation demands on health authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: the Action Plan on Access to Emergency Care Act. This is administrative but important for legislative citation and for integrating the Act into departmental procedures and communications.
Definitions and scope
Defines key terms used across the Act: 'Action Plan,' 'emergency department' (limited to those operated by health authorities), 'health authority,' 'management zone,' and 'Minister.' The practical effect is to limit the law’s operational reach to health-authority-operated EDs and to tether responsibilities to existing statutory actors (the Minister and health authorities under the Health Authorities Act). That confinement matters for coverage and accountability downstream.
Creation and consultation for the Action Plan
Requires the Minister to establish and oversee an Action Plan to improve access, and to develop it in consultation with clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and residents with lived experience. Subsection (3) mandates at least two public meetings in each management zone. Mechanically this forces regional engagement: the Minister must plan, schedule and document multiple local consultations, which drives the Ministry to collect qualitative input as a formal part of policy design rather than as optional outreach.
Substantive content required in the Action Plan
Directs that the Action Plan include measures to improve reliable access and reduce wait times. The provision sets goals but not operational detail or quantitative targets, leaving the Minister discretion over specific interventions and timelines. That design favors flexibility but leaves stakeholders dependent on the Minister’s choices and the consultation process for concrete commitments.
Timing and publication of the Action Plan
Imposes a one-year deadline from the Act’s coming into force for the Minister to table the Action Plan in the House of Assembly (or file it with the Clerk) and requires online publication within 10 days of tabling/filing. Those deadlines create an enforceable schedule for transparency; they also compress the timeframe for cross-zone consultations and for the Ministry to convert qualitative input into a publishable plan.
Annual reporting requirements and tabling
Mandates yearly Ministerial reports listing measures taken and their outcomes, total ED closure hours by location with reasons, average wait times (arrival-to-triage and triage-to-being-seen), and numbers of people leaving without being seen; it also requires tabling or filing the reports. These are specific operational metrics that will require data definitions, consistent collection protocols from health authorities, and mechanisms for public dissemination tied to legislative oversight.
Commencement
States the Act takes effect on January 1, 2027. The specific start date matters because the one-year clock for tabling the Action Plan and the sequence for the first annual report hinge on this commencement date.
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 in communities with frequent temporary ED closures — they gain a formal avenue to contribute lived-experience evidence during mandated public meetings and benefit from publicly available data on closures and wait times that supports advocacy and local planning.
- Provincial policymakers and health system planners — they receive a single, Minister-endorsed Action Plan and standardized annual metrics intended to inform resource allocation and system redesign decisions.
- Health-care researchers and clinicians focused on emergency medicine — they are named consultees and will gain access to consistent provincial data on closures, wait times and LWBS counts to support research and quality-improvement projects.
- Community and patient advocacy groups — the statutory requirement for public meetings and published reports gives advocates evidence and formalized opportunities to push for targeted interventions and hold officials to account.
- Legislators and the public — annual tabling and online publication create routine transparency that improves legislative oversight and public understanding of ED performance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health and Wellness / the Minister’s office — must design and run province-wide consultations, draft the Action Plan, and produce and table yearly reports within statutory timelines, creating administrative workload and potential need for new staff or contracting.
- Health authorities and hospital administrators — must collect, standardize and report closure hours, reasons, and specific wait-time intervals; if existing reporting systems are incomplete they will face setup costs and ongoing data-management burdens.
- Clinicians and local staff — may be called upon for consultation, data validation and to explain reasons for closures (workforce shortages, infection control, or capacity issues), adding time demands outside clinical duties.
- Taxpayers and provincial budget planners — although the Act does not allocate funding, implementation will likely require new resources (data systems, staff time, public engagement costs) that will need to be absorbed within departmental or health authority budgets.
- Small communities and local leaders — may find consultation raises expectations for rapid fixes without accompanying commitments of funding or workforce, increasing political pressure on local decision-makers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus capacity: the Act strengthens accountability by mandating public consultation and standardized disclosure, but it does so without prescribing funding, targets, or enforcement—creating a choice between producing more transparent data that could overwhelm under-resourced health authorities, or underinvesting in the systems needed to make that data meaningful and actionable.
The Act trades clarity of duty for ambiguity in implementation. It creates specific transparency and consultation obligations but leaves critical operational choices—what counts as a closure reason, how to calculate average wait times, what constitutes an 'outcome' for a measure—unanswered.
Those definitional gaps will determine whether the resulting data is comparable across health authorities and useful for policy-making, or inconsistent and open to dispute. Establishing common definitions and a data-collection protocol will be an early, essential task that the bill requires but does not fund or prescribe.
Another tension is between transparency and capacity. Public meetings and annual reporting improve accountability, but they also consume staff time and require reliable data systems.
Health authorities already stretched by staffing shortages may have to divert clinical or administrative resources to meet reporting deadlines, potentially affecting front-line care. Finally, the Act relies on public visibility and consultation as levers for change rather than creating enforceable performance targets or funding streams; that design risks producing more information without guaranteeing improvements, unless the next steps translate reports into funded operational changes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.