This bill amends the Regulated Health Professions Act to change four discrete parts of the statute: it repeals the clause that required an applicant for registration to be "entitled to work in Canada," it authorizes regulatory councils to impose terms or conditions on registrations, it inserts a missing conjunction in subsection 24(1), and it adjusts wording about tissue affected by regulated acts from "in or below" to "on or below" the cornea and teeth surfaces. The explanatory notes say the cross-references to extra-provincial certification are adjusted because clause (2)(b) was included by mistake; otherwise the changes are framed as minor corrections and a new explicit power for councils.
Why this matters: removing the statutory link between registration and entitlement to work decouples credential recognition from federal immigration/work-permit status and could broaden who may hold a provincial registration on paper. At the same time, giving councils explicit authority to attach terms and conditions creates a formal mechanism to limit practice while recognizing credentials.
The drafting fixes may look technical but could affect the scope of regulated invasive procedures and how statutory requirements in s.24(1) are read together—so regulators, employers, and credentialed professionals should review policies and operational procedures if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals the requirement that an applicant be entitled to work in Canada and adjusts cross-references for extra‑provincial certification; it adds an express power for regulatory councils to impose terms or conditions on registration; and it fixes two drafting problems—one grammatical in s.24(1) and one substantive in the phrasing that defines certain tissue-related acts.
Who It Affects
Internationally trained and out-of-province health professionals seeking PEI registration, provincial health-professions regulatory councils and their licensing staff, employers and supervisors who will manage conditional registrants, and clinics providing corneal or dental surface procedures that rely on the statute’s regulated-acts definitions.
Why It Matters
The bill separates statutory registration from immigration/work entitlements, potentially increasing the number of people eligible to be on provincial registers while leaving actual permission to work governed by federal law. Councils gain a formal tool to tailor practice permissions, and the wording changes could shift which ocular and dental procedures fall inside the statute’s regulated-acts framing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 removes the statutory requirement that an applicant for registration be "entitled to work in Canada." Practically, that means the province will no longer require that every person placed on a PEI professional register already hold domestic work authorization. The bill also tweaks the cross-reference in subsection 12(4) so that extra‑provincial certification is treated as satisfying the listed qualification clauses after the repeal.
The explanatory note says clause 12(2)(b) was a drafting error and the amendment corrects the set of clauses that apply when assessing extra-provincial credentials.
Section 2 inserts a new subsection 13(3.1) that lets a council impose "any terms or conditions the council considers appropriate" on an applicant’s registration. That is a broad, discretionary grant of authority: councils can register someone but limit what they may do—by supervision, time limits, restricted procedures, reporting requirements or other conditions—without needing separate statutory authority for each type of restriction.Section 3 corrects the wording of subsection 24(1) by adding the conjunction "and" where it was missing.
Although the change is grammatical, it can affect how two items in the same sentence are read together (for example, whether two requirements were intended to be cumulative). The bill does not add new substantive content to that subsection; it makes the legislature’s intent clearer by fixing the connector.Section 4 changes clause 86(1)(b) from referring to tissue "in or below the surface" of the cornea or teeth surfaces to "on or below the surface." That adjustment narrows or clarifies the locus of tissue addressed by the clause: the statutory language now expressly includes surface-level tissue (tissue on the cornea or tooth surfaces) as well as deeper tissue below the surface.
This will affect which procedures count as touching those tissues under the Act’s prohibitions and authorizations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals clause 12(2)(a) — the statutory requirement that an applicant for registration be "entitled to work in Canada.", Amendment to subsection 12(4) deems extra‑provincial certification to satisfy the listed qualification clauses, adjusted to reflect the repeal of clause (2)(a).
The bill adds subsection 13(3.1), giving councils explicit, broad authority to impose "any terms or conditions" on an applicant’s registration.
Subsection 24(1) is amended by inserting the missing word "and," clarifying the connection between two statutory items in that subsection.
Clause 86(1)(b) is amended to read "on or below the surface" (instead of "in or below"), changing the statutory wording that governs tissue at the cornea and tooth surfaces.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove work‑authorization prerequisite and adjust cross-reference for extra‑provincial credentials
This provision repeals the explicit statutory requirement that an applicant be entitled to work in Canada. It then alters the cross-reference in 12(4) so that applicants holding extra‑provincial certification are treated as meeting the qualifications listed in clauses (2)(c)–(f). For regulators and credential evaluators, the mechanics are: the college can assess extra‑provincial certification on the statutory grounds listed, but it can no longer refuse registration solely because the applicant lacks work authorization. The explanatory note flags that clause (2)(b) was a drafting mistake; the amendment resolves that indexing error rather than creating a new eligibility standard beyond what appears in the remaining clauses.
New explicit power for councils to impose conditions on registration
The council now has an express statutory power to attach "any terms or conditions" it considers appropriate when registering an applicant. Operationally, colleges must develop policies and procedures defining what conditions they will impose, how they will monitor compliance, and how they will review or remove conditions. Because the power is open‑ended, councils can use it for supervision requirements, practice restrictions, limited scopes, reporting obligations, or time‑limited registrations—but they must also justify and document those conditions under their existing fairness and review obligations.
Typographical fix that clarifies statutory linkage
This is a two‑word drafting amendment that inserts the conjunction "and" into subsection 24(1). While not creating new substantive law, the insertion can change statutory interpretation where two items in the provision were intended to be read together rather than as alternatives. Administratively, regulators should review any policies or delegated authorities that rely on s.24(1) to ensure their interpretation aligns with the clarified text.
Refine the wording governing tissue at the cornea and teeth surfaces
Changing "in or below the surface" to "on or below the surface" shifts attention to tissue located on the surface as well as below it. That affects which acts are captured by the regulated‑acts language tied to corneal and dental tissue. Colleges, clinicians and insurers should assess whether common procedures previously considered outside the statute’s wording now fall within it, and whether clinical guidelines, training and consent practices need adjustment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Internationally trained health professionals — they can obtain PEI registration without already holding Canadian work authorization, which may make credential recognition and planning for practice easier even if it does not itself confer permission to work.
- Out-of-province certified practitioners — the amendment explicitly treats extra‑provincial certification as satisfying the enumerated qualification clauses, reducing administrative friction for those moving between jurisdictions.
- Regulatory councils — gain a clear statutory tool to craft conditional registrations that allow recognition while protecting public safety through tailored limits and monitoring.
- Patients in underserviced areas — conditional registrations paired with appropriate supervision could expand the pool of available clinicians more quickly than full licensing processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Regulatory colleges — must create, publish and implement frameworks for imposing, monitoring and enforcing terms and conditions, including appeals and review mechanisms.
- Employers and supervisory clinicians — will carry the operational burden of supervising and ensuring compliance with any conditions attached to registrants, including documentation and potential increased liability exposure.
- Administrative staff and registrars — will face increased workload from processing registrations that require bespoke conditions, cross‑jurisdiction credential assessments, and updated policy manuals.
- Clinics providing corneal or dental surface procedures — may face new compliance obligations or regulatory scrutiny if the wording change brings additional surface procedures within the statute’s scope, with potential training or liability costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades a barrier to registration (the work‑authorization requirement) for regulatory flexibility (conditional registrations), pitting faster recognition and potential improvements in workforce supply against a mismatch with federal work‑authorization rules and the risk of uneven, discretionary limits on practice that may be contested in review or litigation.
The most consequential change is procedural rather than substantive on its face: removing the statutory requirement that an applicant be "entitled to work in Canada" decouples provincial registration from federal immigration and employment authorization. That creates an immediate legal mismatch: registration under provincial law does not equal permission to work under federal immigration or labour statutes.
The bill does not address that split—so colleges may now register people who remain barred from employment by federal rules, raising practical questions about wasted administrative effort, public expectations, and cross‑system coordination.
The new, unqualified power to attach "any terms or conditions" is administratively efficient but legally open‑ended. Without accompanying standards or criteria in the statute or regulation, councils gain broad discretion that may produce inconsistent outcomes across professions or registries.
This discretion improves flexibility to protect the public, yet it also raises risk of uneven treatment and appeals challenging the reasonableness of specific conditions. Separately, the change from "in or below" to "on or below" the surface of corneal and dental tissues appears small but can shift which procedures are regulated; courts or regulators may need to resolve borderline cases about whether a procedure contacts tissue "on" the surface, creating litigation and interpretive uncertainty.
Finally, the bill includes a grammatical fix in s.24(1) whose practical import depends on how prior drafts and administrative practice read the subsection. Small drafting corrections sometimes prompt unexpected shifts in interpretation once challenged in adjudication.
Overall, the amendments speed credential recognition tools and add regulatory flexibility, but they leave unaddressed coordination with federal immigration law, give wide discretionary power without procedural guardrails, and create a handful of interpretive questions that regulatory bodies should anticipate and resolve via policy or regulation.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.