Bill S-5 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Connected Care for Canadians Act
An Act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors
Government bill. Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedFeb. 3, 2026
- Debated in principleMarch 26, 2026
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 26, 2026
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill relies heavily on future regulations to define key prohibitions, standards and even amend core definitions, leaving core obligations open-ended. Subjective phrases and broad grants of ministerial and regulatory power make coverage and compliance hard to determine from the text alone.
Open to argument
“allows the user to easily, completely and securely access and use all electronic health information”
The words 'easily' and 'securely' set subjective standards without objective benchmarks or defined thresholds.“substantially similar to or exceed those established under this Act”
The phrase 'substantially similar' requires ongoing comparative judgment by officials rather than a fixed test.“any information or document that the Minister considers necessary to verify compliance”
The standard 'considers necessary' confers open-ended discretion without limits or criteria.“amending the definition of any term defined in section 2”
Power to rewrite statutory definitions by regulation removes certainty about the Act's scope.
Clear-cut
“This Act applies in a province or territory only if the province or territory is the subject of an order made under section 7”
The application clause uses a clear binary trigger tied to a specific order.“Section 126 of the Criminal Code does not apply in respect of any contravention of any provision of this Act or the regulations”
The non-application rule is stated in absolute, unqualified terms.
Discretion. Extensive discretion remains with the Governor in Council to set standards, expand 'data blocking', decide provincial application, amend definitions, and establish penalties, plus ministerial power to demand any documents deemed necessary.
Challenging the law itself. The Act could be challenged for vagueness and overbreadth under section 7 of the Charter because key obligations hinge on subjective language and open-ended regulatory powers.
Disputing a charge under it. A vendor could readily dispute breach because whether technology is 'interoperable' or engages in 'data blocking' turns on regulations and subjective judgments about ease and security of access.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.