If you want what is best for the public, start by listening to the people caring for them
For reference, watch this exchange streamed live at the Legislature on April 1, 2026.
Watch the video here beginning at 1:11
When MLA, and Health Critic for B.C. Anna Kindy raised concerns in the Legislature about health professionals leaving British Columbia because of the HPOA, the Minister of Health responded by repeating the government’s description of what the Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA) is supposed to do, even though it is not reflecting the realities practitioners are reporting.
In doing so, she dismissed the voices Anna Kindy was bringing forward into the Legislature on behalf of front-line health professionals. Information that is real. Information that could be validated by conversations and data. Information that a Minister of Health should at the very least want to consider, explore, question, and be concerned about, if there was even a possibility it could be true.
We know that an alarming number of psychologists are leaving the profession, moving out of province, reducing hours, and limiting their scope of practice. Even retiring earlier than planned.
We cannot afford to lose even one qualified, experienced, committed, registered psychologist in this province. A psychologist is not easily or quickly replaced.
These are not rumours. These are our colleagues.
And leaving is only part of the problem.
The bigger issue is why this is happening in the first place.
The concerns around the HPOA go much deeper than workforce loss. They include the kind of governance, structure, and decision-making that have left many practitioners feeling sidelined, overruled, and increasingly disconnected from a system they are expected to practice under every day.
So, when those concerns are raised publicly and the response is to repeat the government’s framing of what the law was meant to do rather than grapple with what practitioners are actually reporting, it replaces lived reality with official narrative.
Because intentions are not outcomes.
And if what government set out to do is not what practitioners are actually living, then it is time to stop defending the framing and start examining the reality.
Psychologists are speaking here from within our own profession, but we are far from alone.
Doctors, nurses, dentists, naturopaths, chiropractors, and other regulated health professionals have all raised serious concerns about the impact of the HPOA and the broader regulatory direction surrounding it.
At some point, a fair question has to be asked:
Can such a large part of the health care infrastructure all be wrong?
Or is government still refusing to hear something it does not want to fully face?
That is what made this exchange so frustrating.
It reinforced a concern many practitioners have had from the beginning: not only do the people governing this system appear not to fully understand the people they are governing — they do not seem to fully grasp the value of their experience, judgment, insight, and direct knowledge of what is happening on the ground, and the impact it is having on health care workers and the public they serve.
When this law was developed, psychologists and other regulated professionals were not meaningfully listened to in a way that was reflected in the final law they are now expected to practice under and provide care within.
And when those same professions continue to raise concerns now, the response still appears to be to override what they are saying rather than seriously engage with it.
Listening to practitioners does not mean government must agree with every point raised or accept every recommendation.
But if you genuinely want what is best for the public, at least listen to the people caring for them.
That should not be controversial.
In fact, it should be the baseline.
We believe the stated goal is to improve the system in service of the public.
But good leadership does not just announce reform and keep repeating its purpose after serious concerns begin surfacing.
Good leadership listens carefully, pays attention to what is unfolding, and takes action before the damage becomes greater than it needs to be.
Before more practitioners are pushed out.
Before more scope is lost.
Before the erosion of care and access goes further than it should.
We do not believe this is what the regulators must want or intended.
But the sooner government is open to listening, the better it will serve the public.
https://www.hpoa-psychologists.com/when-the-architect-raises-concerns-its-time-to-listen/
#AnnaKindy #JordanKealy #HPOA #Bill36
For approximately 20 years, I served many British Columbians in my role as a psychologist. I would have continued to do so for many more. However, I chose not to renew my BC license on 2026-04-01 because of HPOA requirements that not only affect psychologists’ ability to regulate themselves but also affect their ability to practice with integrity and maintain their clients’ confidentiality. HPOA purposes to protect the public. I certainly believe in public protection – hence, I have chosen to protect my clients from HPOA overreach. What an irony!
When BC creates a healthcare environment that enables psychologists to practice with integrity – that is, after the HPOA is either amended or repealed to allow for true public protection (i.e. for clients as well as practitioners) -– then, I will gladly renew my BC license. Meanwhile, I have chosen to move my practice to another province.
Thank you for your 20 years of dedicated service to British Columbians and for clearly highlighting the painful irony at the heart of this legislation. You are completely right—practitioners should never be forced into a position where they must leave the province just to shield their clients’ confidentiality from state overreach. The HPOA may significantly compromise clinical privacy by granting broad powers to government-appointed inspectors to access raw, unredacted patient files without a court order. To add a new point to your concern about practicing with integrity, the Act also introduces sweeping, mandatory “duty to report” provisions. These clauses may legally compel practitioners to report colleagues based on highly subjective criteria, potentially weaponizing workplace dynamics and replacing a culture of collaborative peer support with one of systemic surveillance. We are fully committed to keeping the pressure on until this Act is repealed and replaced so you can safely return to practice here.
The idea that this legislation is about public protection is simply untrue. This point is well-articulated in this blog. If it was about improving health care there would have been a lot more listening and a lot more consultation. It is about the government desiring to have more control over healthcare. Removing health care professionals from the boards that regulate them and amalgamating Colleges that are dissimilar while at the same time giving government significantly more power and control does not translate to an improvement in health care regulation, health care access, or health care outcomes.
You have hit on the exact structural core of why this Act may be failing the public. True public protection relies on professional expertise, yet this legislation shifts the focus entirely toward state centralization. As you noted, replacing peer-elected professionals on regulatory boards with 100% government-appointed members under the new College of Health and Care Professionals of BC (CHCPBC) strips away vital clinical nuance. To build on your point regarding this control, the HPOA explicitly grants the Minister of Health the power to directly issue “ministerial directives” to the College boards. This means a political office may now directly steer clinical standards, entry requirements, or disciplinary directions, effectively erasing the line between independent public regulation and partisan government policy. We must continue educating the public that an over-politicized healthcare system is inherently an unsafe one.
While I chose to ultimately hold my nose and register under the HPOA (largely the result of financial planning and necessity), I have stopped taking any new BC client referrals. I have chosen to continue servicing some of my BC clients this year with a plan to slowly close down my BC practice while growing my practice in other provinces if this legislation is not repealed. And even if repealed, unless we move back to a College specific to Mental Health (similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Nurses and Midwives, or the College of Oral Professionals), I have no faith a “jack of all trades” College (Audiologists, Dietitians, Hearing Instrument Practitioners, Occupational Therapists, Opticians, Optometrists, Physical Therapists, Speech Language Pathologists) can ethically and meaningfully regulate a profession as complex, nuanced and relational as psychology.
BC is the only province in Canada to remove self regulation from highly trained and educated health professionals. Even Harry Cayton, the architect of the regulatory changes, has been clear our NDP government pushed the new legislation way too far in the direction of overreach and unnecessary control, and expressed concern about the negative impact on the well being of professionals and protection of the public. If our legacy Colleges were failing to prioritize protection of the public (I would love to see “proof” of these allegations for our esteemed legacy College), the government could have created a committee to collaborate and strengthen oversight of the Colleges’ management of complaints. They didn’t. The NDP government chose a complete take over of regulatory powers, and now everyone at the regulatory College is government appointed.
Regulated health care professionals are afraid to speak out because government now controls 100% of the boards that investigate and punish. Even anonymous, un-investigated and vexatious complaints can be published on the College website. Not an actual client? No matter. Psychologists are now wide open to swings being taken for any multitude of reasons (e.g., disgruntled ex-partner, angry neighbour). The fines and punishments are significant (up to $500,000 if incorporated, and up to two years in prison). There is no appeal process allowed to an independent court. The College is granted full immunity from being held accountable in the event they defame a professional and/or destroy a livelihood. Licensure (and livelihood) is now contingent on any vaccination government deems necessary. And private and sensitive client information can be reviewed or taken without subpoena or oversight. It truly is Orwellian in nature. And terrifying despite having never received a complaint.
Government promises they won’t abuse this massive overreach. Do I believe them after witnessing the way many of my colleagues have been treated? After the first course of action taken by this new College was to sue at least a dozen of my respected and dedicated colleagues who sat on the board of my legacy College (they dared to challenge and defy the amalgamation process knowing it would be terrible for our profession, and hired a lawyer after being instructed to simply step down)? After seeing how little substantive change was made to the draft copy of the new College’s “one size fits all” standards and ethics despite receiving a deluge of time consuming, meaningful and thoughtful feedback from psychologists as requested? Do I trust there will be no abuse of such absolute power? Not a chance. Health care in BC is now politicized. Period. And health care professionals are likely to toe the line with any and all government decisions regarding the delivery of health care to avoid complaint, investigation and punishment.
Our new College is touting a 97% renewal rate for the more than 16,000 health care professionals they regulate. Psychologists made up approximately 1,600 licensees before the implementation of the HPOA. I personally know of several colleagues who did not renew. Most colleagues say the same. And for those of us who did remain? My prediction is a slow but steady attrition of psychologists over the coming years. Some are delaying full practice closure until they have been able to establish themselves elsewhere, and/or ethically wrap up psychological care with existing clients. Some are choosing to retire early. Many have stopped taking on high risk, complex clients and litigious assessments. Others have stopped taking new clients and will only work with those they know and feel safe with. Most are now practicing defensively to reduce the risk of complaint. This legislation has created a general chill over health care professionals. Many are afraid. How is the public better protected in such a system?
It is a sad state of affairs for sure. With so much wrong in our health care system, the NDP government chose to spend several years and lots of money on overhauling the regulatory system. Is this because the regulatory system was broken and the public wasn’t protected, as the well crafted government narrative repeats over and over again? Or because it was all about having total control over the professionals who work in a broken system from the outset? Does anyone really believe the government has a better handle on regulating professions that require over a decade of intensive training and education than the professionals themselves? Even the suggestion that the government will protect my clients from me because I am a potential danger is a nonstarter. It is offensive and disrespectful. The vast majority of healthcare professionals are caring, compassionate and hardworking people who want to help improve the lives and well being of others. Until there is a more balanced, collaborative and honest approach? I’m out.
Thank you for your incredibly detailed, brave, and comprehensive breakdown of the reality on the ground. Your fear of repercussion is highly justified and shared by many who chose to hold their noses and register out of financial necessity. You accurately highlighted several of the most Orwellian features of the HPOA—from the staggering fines of up to $500,000 for corporations to the total statutory immunity granted to the College even if an investigation destroys an innocent professional’s livelihood. To expand on your vital point regarding the “slow attrition” of psychologists, the Act also establishes a new, centralized “Health Professions Review Tribunal.” Under this model, the government-appointed Director of Discipline controls the tribunal panels, which may severely restrict a practitioner’s ability to present a full defense or access a truly independent judicial appeal. We will continue using your powerful insights to break through the government’s 97% renewal narrative and expose the quiet exodus occurring beneath the surface.
Please continue the work to get the provincial govt to listen and do what is in the best interest of the public and the practioners.
Thank you for your encouraging words and your push to keep the pressure on the provincial government. We promise you that our coalition will not back down. It is essential for the public to understand that when the Minister of Health dismisses frontline health professionals, it isn’t just a political disagreement—it can directly threatens patient care. To add a new piece of information regarding how this disconnect functions, the HPOA operates under a framework where the government can quietly enact sweeping new bylaws and structural changes through “Orders in Council” with minimal legislative debate or public scrutiny. This allows major regulatory shifts to occur behind closed doors without input from the very people caring for the public. We will continue working hard to amplify these facts, and we appreciate your support in keeping this critical conversation alive.
I am a registered psychologist in independent forensic practice. Since the HPOA and the new Code of Conduct and Ethics came into effect, I have begun declining complex, high-risk referrals that I would previously have accepted, including referrals involving vulnerable children and families. The current framework appears poorly suited to independent forensic practice and has made this work feel professionally unsafe. The public impact is real: when psychologists withdraw from complex evaluations, vulnerable people lose access to specialized services that are not easily replaced. Government needs to listen to practitioners before more of this work disappears and vulnerable children and families are left without access to appropriately qualified, specialized evaluators.
Thank you for providing this crucial perspective from the front lines of independent forensic practice. Your comment illustrates the immediate, tangible damage this law is doing to British Columbia’s most vulnerable populations, including children and families in crisis. Forensic and custody assessments are inherently high-stakes and highly litigious, requiring immense professional courage. Under the HPOA, a psychologist faces a system where even anonymous, uninvestigated, or completely vexatious complaints may be publicly published on the College register before a fair hearing takes place. This public exposure, combined with the lack of an independent court appeal, makes complex cases a massive professional liability. This systemic chill means experienced evaluators may continue to decline high-risk referrals, leaving our family court system without the expert, objective guidance it desperately needs to protect children. We will absolutely bring your voice to the forefront of our advocacy.