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
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.
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.
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.
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.