Listen to this article
Estimated 4 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by text-to-speech, a technology based on artificial intelligence.
Quebec’s federation of medical specialists and the provincial government have reached an agreement on how to interpret a controversial provision in Bill 2, potentially allowing the doctors’ association to drop its request for an emergency stay of the legislation.
But while the emergency stay request may be held, the court challenge isn’t over, according to Jean-Philippe Groleau, a lawyer for the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ).
The bill was adopted into law late last month, and has been drawing the ire of doctors’ federations as it imposes a new salary structure on physicians.
Among the immediate concerns, Groleau explained, is the meaning behind Bill 2’s prohibition against two or more doctors engaging in a concerted effort, such as pressure tactics, to disrupt or slow medical care to protest government policy.
The FMSQ was worried that this provision could be interpreted so strictly that two doctors who were married and moved to Ontario to practise, or colleagues who discussed retiring at the same time, could be found guilty of the prohibition and subjected to severe fines.
In a surprise turn, lawyers for the government and the federation representing medical specialists reached an agreement on one of the more controversial parts of Quebec’s new doctor remuneration law. If ratified by a Superior Court judge, it would allow doctors to decide their own futures, without fear of reprisal.
On Thursday afternoon, the FMSQ announced it had received the government’s interpretation of Bill 2. The government confirmed it would not interpret the provision strictly, clarifying it would not penalize actions like two married doctors relocating or two doctors retiring simultaneously.
The federation agreed with this less restrictive interpretation, noting the government affirmed a much higher burden of proof — at the criminal level — would be required for the prohibition to apply. Quebec’s attorney general would need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the doctors were actually leaving in protest.
“I think doctors are going to be safe,” Groleau said, noting the rush to order a stay was to protect the fundamental rights of doctors.
Following their meeting, the two sides submitted a joint proposal outlining this interpretation to a Quebec Superior Court judge, asking him to approve it. The judge said he would take a few days to issue a decision.
If the judge approves the joint interpretation, the FMSQ said this specific request for an emergency stay would no longer be necessary. However, the federation said it still intends to challenge the rest of the law in court, including the provisions that contravene the right of association and negotiation.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, the province’s justice minister and attorney general, has maintained that the federations’ initial interpretation of the legislation was incorrect and their fears were unfounded.
Paul Brunet, president of the Quebec Council for Patients Rights, was at the court Thursday. He said he wants patients to be represented.
“On the one hand, we have a government that is certainly well-intentioned, that wants to improve the efficiency of doctors’ services, not to mention improving the efficiency of the network itself,” he said.
“And at the same time, we have doctors who say: ‘If this law actually comes into force, we will lose hundreds of doctors.’ Patients are no further ahead. We want justice to settle the debate.”
Brunet reiterated that the council requested an amendment to Bill 2 so that it would state that all patients will have access to health care.
