Summary#

Bill 11, the More Convenient Care Act, 2025, is an Ontario law that amends five Acts and creates the Health Care Staffing Agency Reporting Act, 2025. Its stated goal is to make care more connected and convenient and improve oversight and transparency. The bill has been enacted as Chapter 7 of Ontario’s 2025 statutes, but some provisions still need a start date set by order.

• Hamilton public health: The City of Hamilton must establish a board of health, appoint all its members and provide the staff it considers necessary. The City keeps key appointment powers, including for the medical officer of health.
• Staffing agencies: A new law requires covered agencies to report prescribed aggregate billing, administrative or pay-rate information and keep certain contracts and invoices. The Minister may publish prescribed information.
• Public health orders: A medical officer of health must notify the Chief Medical Officer of Health and get written approval before issuing a class order to people in the health unit.
• Nurse practitioners and French-language services: Nurse practitioners may take on specified roles in the mandatory blood-testing process. The French Language Services Act applies to the Service Organization as though it were a government agency.
• Digital health identifiers: The law authorizes a prescribed organization to carry out activities such as validating identity and managing digital health identifiers, with duties and powers concerning personal health information. The organization is not named in the bill.

What it means for you#

• Hamilton residents: The board’s area is the City. At the City’s request, it must make recommendations on public-health issues within the City’s jurisdiction and report annually on its operations. The City, not the board, retains specified appointment powers.
• Health care staffing agencies and facilities: Agencies that assign prescribed people to covered facilities must submit reports at least every six months, unless regulations set another timing. The reports cover aggregate information, not individual pay details as described in the bill. Agencies must retain specified contracts and invoices.
• People affected by a class order: Before a medical officer of health can issue an order to a class of people in the health unit, the Chief Medical Officer of Health must approve the proposed order in writing.
• Applicants, respondents and nurse practitioners: Nurse practitioners may prepare reports and take blood samples in the process. If the Board orders a sample, it must be taken within two business days after the order is provided. Other details, including qualifications and testing requirements, may be set by regulation.
• People using digital health identifiers: The prescribed organization may collect or use personal health information for these activities with the person’s express consent, and may disclose it to the Minister for identity checks with that consent. The bill does not require people to get an identifier or promise a particular service or outcome.
• French-speaking users of the Service Organization: The French Language Services Act will apply to it. The supplied material does not explain which services or obligations this will cover in practice.

Money#

No publicly available information on the cost is included in the supplied material.

• The City must provide the board with the public-health employees it considers necessary, but no staffing number or cost is given.
• Staffing agencies will have reporting and record-keeping duties, but no compliance-cost estimate is given.
• No spending amount, funding source, fee or expected savings is specified for the digital health identifier provisions.

What is unclear#

• The staffing-agency reporting law starts on a day set by order. Regulations must define key details, including which people are covered, what information agencies report and what information the Minister may publish.
• The digital health identifier provisions mostly await a start date set by order. Regulations must name the prescribed organization and may set important rules, including exceptions to consent requirements and changes to how some privacy rules apply.
• The bill does not set out a full process for people to obtain or use an identifier, or explain how the organization will handle requests to correct information in some records. Regulations may also affect access to records.
• The law requires written approval before a class order, but the bill does not specify criteria for that approval.
• The supplied material does not include the parent Acts in full, so the changes could not be checked against all current-law details. It also does not give start dates for the provisions awaiting orders.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to improve oversight of staffing agencies by requiring regular reports and keeping supporting records.
• Allowing nurse practitioners to perform specified blood-testing roles could give the process more qualified health professionals who can carry it out.
• Requiring the Chief Medical Officer of Health’s written approval for class orders adds a central review step before orders apply to a group.
• A digital health identifier system could make it easier to confirm identity for health-related services. The bill also requires privacy practices, security steps and notice to affected people after certain breaches.

Case against#

• Reporting and record-keeping duties could add costs for staffing agencies, but the bill gives no estimate and leaves much of the reporting detail to regulations.
• The digital health provisions leave important choices to future regulations, including the organization’s identity and possible limits on consent and privacy rules. That makes the practical protections hard to assess from the bill alone.
• Requiring central written approval for class orders could add a decision step; the bill does not set approval criteria or a decision deadline.
• The City’s board must receive the employees the City considers necessary, but the bill does not set a minimum staffing level or a separate funding amount.