RepealBill36.org / RepealBill36@proton.me:
British Columbia Bill 36, the Health Professions And Occupations Act, states that the government can, without legislative oversight or debate, order any compliance it sees fit, including the wholesale adoption of foreign laws and regulations. No other province has seen the need for such draconian legislation.
It was drafted in a bubble and with legislative debate suppressed:
https://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard-content/Debates/42nd4th/20230504am-Hansard-n322.html
This government is developing quite a pattern of not wanting proper scrutiny and questioning of things they’re bringing forward. As we heard with Bill 36, 400 sections have closure brought on by this government, regardless of debate time leading up to that. In fact, our motion to refer those 400 sections to the Health Committee to have a proper review of those 400 sections was quashed by this government.
Bill 36 has already been passed but has not yet been implemented. It is set to come into force when the Lieutenant Governor in Council decrees it as such, as shown below in a direct quote from the bill itself.
645 This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
[Note that all direct quotations from the bill are formatted the same way on this page, and all bolded section numbers are links to the original text, as shown above.]
The following discussion will be neither for nor against any political party – none will be named – because unless repealed, the bill will outlive any party’s term in government and its powers will be the powers of government itself.
Ask yourself if you would be comfortable trusting these powers in the hands of your political least-favorites, because in a democracy that’s what will happen one day.
The time to act is now. Major concerns with the bill include the following:
- The government may, without legislative debate or approval, adopt any health regulation from any international body, or any other jurisdiction in the world, or any other code-making body at all, or as published by a laboratory.
335 (a) the provincial health officer may adopt by reference, in whole or in part and with any changes that, in the opinion of the provincial health officer, are appropriate, a regulation, code, standard or rule (i) enacted as or under a law of British Columbia or another jurisdiction, including a foreign jurisdiction, (ii) set by a provincial, national or international body or any other body that may make codes, standards or rules, or (iii) published by a laboratory within the meaning of the Public Health Act
Note that “in whole or in part and with any changes” means absolute power, as any regulation or law at all can now be amended at will and decreed in whatever form the government sees fit.
- Persons are also required to support various government political positions, dissent from which can lead to loss of license for a practitioner, plus a fine and prison time for each instance. One can agree or disagree with a political position, but it should never be made mandatory. Here’s an example from Bill 36:
14 a person must act in accordance with the following principles:(ii) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
This Declaration, commonly referred to by its acronym of “UNDRIP,” mostly reaffirms basic human rights that should apply to all people. But it also unequivocally states, for example, that indigenous people own the land in the jurisdiction, in this case B.C. From the Declaration itself:Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
The above is legally incorporated into Bill 36 by reference. When the land claims begin, will persons be forced to politically support one side over the other, since persons will now be legally obligated to “act in accordance?”Bill 36 also mandates other required behavior:
15 (1) (a) to foster physically, culturally, socially, emotionally and spiritually safe practices;
The acceptable forms of “spiritually safe practices” are left undefined. They will mean what the regulators at the time decide that they mean. Failure to correctly support them beforehand can mean fines and prison time. By way of illustration, do you know what “spiritually safe” means? And as an aside, hasn’t history shown us time and again not to let governments dictate religious practices? - All of the bill’s powers and penalties apply against both active and former healthcare practitioners.
5 All powers that may be exercised under this Act against a regulated health practitioner may be exercised against any of the following: (a) a former regulated health practitioner; (b) a person whose practice of a health profession was governed under any of the following enactments: (i) the Chiropractors Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 48; (ii) the Dentists Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 94; (iii) the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183; (iv) the Medical Practitioners Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 285; (v) the Nurses (Registered) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 335; (vi) the Optometrists Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 342; (vii) the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 363; (viii) the Podiatrists Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 366.
These provisions remain for life. An active healthcare provider and a retired one are equally liable. Older practitioners who think they can “escape” by retiring are mistaken, as are those who retired years ago. They can lower their profile, but they will nonetheless remain subject to “all powers that may be exercised under this Act,” as stated in the bill.
- The government takes over full control of the regulatory colleges who run the medical professions. Previously, for example, doctors would elect half the directors of their medical college. Bill 36 replaces this with an undemocratic process whereby only political appointees will be allowed. This takeover will apply similarly to all health professions and occupations.
346 The minister (a) must appoint no fewer than 8 persons and no more than 12 persons to a board
- The government has further announced its intention under Bill 36 to consolidate the number of regulatory colleges from 20 down to 6. Currently, they are organized by medical specialty.
https://www.bcsls.net/regulatory-college
The proposed arrangement of regulatory colleges will consist of 6 regulatory colleges to replace the current 20. Medical laboratory technologist will be regulated by an umbrella college, tentatively called the Regulatory College of Allied Health and Care Professionals, along with dietitians, occupational therapists, opticians, optometrists, physical therapists, psychologists, speech and hearing professionals, clinical perfusionists, respiratory therapists, and radiation therapists.
How an optician would have the knowledge to regulate a psychologist, or vice-versa, is left unspecified. Fortunately, since the government will be able to appoint whomever it wants, it might be able to square that circle by choosing a bureaucrat who has heard of both.
- Bill 36 specifically forbids the dissemination of false or misleading information. In other words, a statement need not be false to be deemed misleading; even the verifiable truth, when espoused by a practitioner or former practitioner, can be forbidden this way, and the provision also applies to any public comment – e.g. on social media – that a practitioner or former practitioner makes.
70 (2) (g) providing false or misleading information to patients or the public
- Under Bill 36, healthcare practitioners can lose their licenses for violation of any of its regulations, and the violations can include speaking the verifiable truth. The record of this “malpractice” would be public and would follow that practitioner to any other jurisdiction that he or she might later attempt to work in.
Practitioners can further be fined $200,000 and sent to prison for 6 months per instance of the supposed offence. The prison term rises up to 2 years for those who are directors or officers of an incorporated business, such as a clinic or a medical practice.
A further penalty of $500,000 can then be applied to a corporation, such as a medical clinic run by one or more doctors. This is in addition to the $200,000 fines and 2 years in prison applied to the individual(s) running the corporation.
518 (1) An individual who commits an offence listed in (a) section 514 (1) [offences] is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or to both, (b) section 514 (2) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $200 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months, or to both, or (c) section 514 (3) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $200 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years, or to both. (2) If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, (a) the corporation is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $500 000, and (b) a director or officer of the corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $200 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years, or to both.
- The regulators themselves, i.e. the government-appointed directors of the regulatory colleges who will promulgate all the rules, are specifically exempted from penalty for disseminating misleading information.
516 If a corporation other than a regulatory college commits an offence under section 514 [offences], an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence also commits the offence. 514 (2) A person who does any of the following commits an offence: (a) knowingly discloses information in contravention of a provision of this Act or the regulations;
-
Armed raids are explicitly authorized under this bill. This can be for what they deem to be the violation of a regulation, or for the government’s pre-crime expectation of one, even if none has occurred.
506 (2) A judge may make an order described in subsection (1) if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of one or both of the following may be found: (a) that a person has contravened, is contravening or will likely contravene (i) a provision of this Act or of a regulation, bylaw or order
Actually, getting a judge’s permission is optional. Legal warrants – aka search and seizure orders – are not even required for a raid:511 (1) A person who may make an application for a search and seizure order may, without first obtaining the order, do a thing described in subsection (2) if the person has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) there are grounds for a search and seizure order
If present, a warrant need not be honoured, and anything can be taken:508 (2) (a) the person may seize that thing as if it were described in the search and seizure order, (c) section 509 [detention of seized things] applies as if the thing were described in the search and seizure order.
Note that since the regulations can include posting verifiably true comments on social media, this means that any officer will be explicitly authorized to order an armed raid on a practitioner’s house on suspicion that the practitioner might, for example, tell the truth on Facebook. We can only hope our line officers have more sense than our legislators.
The person being raided need not even be notified:502 (1) An application may be made without notice to any person
- The government may at any time, without legislative debate or approval, authorize non-medical practitioners to perform medical procedures, and to do so unassisted by a professional. Anyone at all can be so authorized – soldiers, police, teachers, accountants etc – and Bill 36 makes no provision for requiring additional training before they perform the medical procedures.
334 (1) The provincial health officer may, by order, do one or more of the following: (c) authorize a person to take a regulated action that, under a health regulation, (i) only a regulated health practitioner may take, or (ii) may be taken only under the supervision or direction of a regulated health practitioner.
As described by the legislation, this power can be used at any time, “by order.” No emergency need be present.
You might ask why our government thinks it needs this sort of power at this time. Is it anticipating such a big shortage of qualified healthcare practitioners? Or is it expecting that the existing practitioners might refuse to administer a misguided treatment on ethical grounds?
- Bill 36’s emphasis on extrajurisdictional practitioners implies that the government anticipates an exodus of existing practitioners who will need to be replaced, as evidenced by the word “extrajurisdictional” appearing dozens of times in its text. Persons will be legally obligated to assist in the process.
14 (3) a person must act in accordance with the following principles: (b) to identify and remove barriers to the practice of a designated profession or occupation, in British Columbia, by extrajurisdictional practitioners;
The bill does not state whether the extrajurisdictionals must come to BC or if they will be practicing remotely.
Courting “extrajurisdictionals” will not solve our existing, overwhelming problem with waiting lists, though. If it could, that problem would have been solved decades ago.
Moreover, most extrajurisdictional practitioners will be unlikely to risk the onerous Bill 36 punishments they could face by practicing here, especially since both the regulations and the penalties will remain in force against former practitioners, even if those former practitioners subsequently move elsewhere.
The danger to their professional reputation and credentials alone will be a major disincentive, as will be the increasing number of inter-jurisdictional agreements around the world, whereby one jurisdiction’s condemnation of a practitioner will matter a lot in another jurisdiction.
For example, under Bill 36 a practitioner who works in another jurisdiction must supply a certificate, on return, indicating a “clean record” there. Other jurisdictions have, or will have, similar requirements.
81 Duty if practice in another jurisdiction 81 (1) In this section, “certificate of professional conduct” means (a) a certificate, in the form required by the registrar and issued by an extrajurisdictional regulator or another person or body specified for this purpose in the bylaws, certifying (i) that the holder of the certificate practised a health profession in the jurisdiction in which the certificate was issued, (ii) that the holder was not subject to an order that is in the nature of a disciplinary order in relation to the practice of the health profession in that jurisdiction, and (iii) any other matter with respect to the holder as required under the bylaws
- Mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers are back on the table, this time in perpetuity.
200 (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the minister may make regulations requiring applicants and regulated health service providers to do one or more of the following: (c) be vaccinated against specified transmissible illnesses;
Traditional vaccines immunize. You are thereby fully protected and do not need to worry about any other person’s vaccination history.
It’s only the new mRNA vaccines that raise a controversy. One might conclude, as many have, that an mRNA vaccination will nonetheless lessen symptoms; i.e. “it would have been worse if I hadn’t been jabbed.” One might alternatively conclude, as some have, that an mRNA vaccination is more risk than reward; i.e. “the side-effects of the jab are worse than the disease.”
The argument will continue long into the future, but fortunately, neither of the above positions affects anyone else’s health. This leaves transmissibility, the risk of infecting others, as the sole reason to consider mandating vaccination.
Transmissibility is indeed a major consideration, as it should be, but the mRNA vaccines have no effect on it. The risk of catching Covid from others is the same whether those others are vaccinated or unvaccinated.
We can all remember – firsthand, the best empirical evidence there is – how our government ordered us to wear masks to protect others even when we’d already had our shots. That was because we were all equally capable of spreading the virus, regardless of our vaccination status.
Many healthcare practitioners and former practitioners have decided that the personal risk of the shot outweighs the personal reward and – per the unchanged transmissibility – is of no benefit to others. That’s why they choose to remain unvaccinated. Forcing them to get jabbed on command will only cause more of the active ones to drop out of the field altogether at a time when we are already suffering from a shortage of qualified people and are beating the bushes internationally for “extrajurisdictionals.”
We lost thousands of healthcare practitioners over the last round of mRNA mandates; let’s not go from bad to worse.
- When practitioners do their work in collaboration with others – which is normal – they can each be held personally liable for any transgression of a regulation that they and their fellow collaborators together might do.
214 (2) A regulated health service provider who provides health services in collaboration with another person remains personally responsible for his or her compliance as described under subsection (1).
The theme of group culpability extends to corporations as well, such as a medical clinic. Every employee of the corporation can be considered culpable for the offence of a single person working there, and all you have to do to be guilty is to “acquiesce,” i.e. not protest. That’s all it will take for you to be as guilty as the perpetrator.
Remember, this also applies to other peoples’ public comments to which you might acquiesce by failing to protest/report.
516 If a corporation other than a regulatory college commits an offence under section 514 [offences], an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence also commits the offence.
This puts co-workers, many without formal medical training, in the position of having to overtly protest against their bosses every time a regulation, however vague or disputable, might have been transgressed. The forms of protest that would indemnify the co-worker are not defined in the bill, however.
- It appears that investigations and actions can be brought forward by anyone and, given the hefty penalties and prison terms, practitioners can likely expect to face higher legal exposure than they do today, including prison. Whether the practitioner actually does anything ethically wrong is not the point.
96 Nothing in this Division prevents a person from (b) investigating or taking enforcement action with respect to a violation of this Act, the regulations, the bylaws or an order
Completely at the regulator’s discretion, the full investigative powers given to the government by Bill 36 are exceedingly broad. They include any personal or confidential information; if the regulator says the information is relevant, it is legally considered so.
224 (2) To obtain information or records that may be relevant to the investigation of a regulatory complaint, a health occupation director may order the complainant or the respondent, or both, to provide additional information and records, including personal information or other types of confidential information, by the date stated in the order.
- The above provisions – the vague regulations, the restrictions on truth, the armed raids, the fines, the prison sentences etc. – are done at the sole discretion of the appointed regulators. Practitioners such as doctors or nurses can be charged, convicted, fined $200,000 and sentenced to 2 years in prison per “offence” with no one to appeal to but the regulator who’s convicting them.
Worse, Bill 36 not only authorizes the appointed regulators with absolute power, it specifically bans subsequent judicial review. Thou shalt not appeal:
512 (1) This section applies to a health occupation director, the director of discipline, a discipline panel and the Health Professions Review Board. (2) A person or body referred to in subsection (1) has exclusive jurisdiction (a) to inquire into, hear and determine all those matters and questions of fact, law and discretion arising or required to be determined by the person or body under this Act, and (b) to make any order authorized to be made by the person or body under this Act. (3) A decision or order of a person or body referred to in subsection (1) on a matter with respect to which the person or body has exclusive jurisdiction is final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court.
The courts have been deliberately removed from the equation. With that removal, our most important legal traditions become optional and at the regulators’ discretion. This includes presumption of innocence, double jeopardy, rules of evidence, and more. Why?
- The government can designate any profession at all as being healthcare, and under Bill 36 can do so with no legislative debate or approval whatsoever.
Perhaps the government might designate social media as healthcare in the future, since it can be used to disseminate health advice; or health insurance providers, since they too can offer medical information, in their case based on actuarial data; or universities who do medical research and publish results that might contradict a regulatory college’s previous judgment.
If these examples sound far-fetched, ask yourself why a government would want the executive power to do so in the first place, without legislation or even so much as as a legislative debate.
18 (2) (e) The minister may give directions respecting a designation assessment as follows: (e) respecting any other matter that, in the opinion of the minister, is necessary for the minister to make a decision with respect to the matters that are the subject of the assessment.
It could happen to anyone. It could happen to you. If you via your profession were to be so designated – or perhaps designated under a separate “Bill 36” naming your own profession – then the practitioner pitfalls outlined in this document would apply to you, too, as surely as they do to our current and former healthcare practitioners.
You would be subject to the onerous fines and prison terms and would remain subject to them forever; you would be held liable for actions taken by any others with whom you work “in collaboration;” your public comments, such as via social media, would open you to regulatory action; you could be forced to get multiple vaccinations; and anyone at all would be able to commence a regulatory action against you for any offence under the bill. All of which would apply even after you retired from, or quit, your current profession.
Most people, when they learn the details of Bill 36, will shake their heads. Some have literally gasped. Bill 36 is a mess that will drive out our healthcare workers for the obvious reasons as discussed.
None of us would want to live and work under such an unfair regimen ourselves and we shouldn’t force it on our practitioners, either. Let’s repeal Bill 36. Let’s do so before we have no healthcare providers left at all.
And most of all, let’s do it because it’s the right thing to do.
*** The End ***