Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

7, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS

RECOGNITION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 38; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act,

to order.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

The Chair: Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I welcome you to the chair.

Just before the break, we were having some very lengthy discussion with respect to

the consistency and the opportunity for internationally trained professionals, when

they approach their various regulators — the 18 which are covered under this particular

bill — to have confidence that the process, the bylaws and the policies that are put

in place will not be changed subsequent to the making an application.

I was trying to seek a bit of clarification or a commitment that it would be the expectation

of the minister, and subsequently of the superintendent, that individuals making their

initial application for recognition of foreign-held credentials not be subject to

changes with respect to the policies and bylaws.

The minister indicated that within the provisions of the act, there are references

to best practice in certain things, but I certainly didn't feel the minister providing

any direct commitment to what, I think, most internationally trained professionals

would see as a fair process.

If I'm making an application on today's date, the regulator will establish what the

policies and bylaws are by which I will be required to meet a set amount of criteria

in order to obtain recognition of my foreign credential. I do not believe that it

would be fair or just for those individuals, necessarily, to be subject to further

consequential changes of those bylaws or procedures.

Is there any further commentary the minister might provide, to ensure that those internationally

trained professionals, who have foregone knowledge and some confidence in the process

by which they enter, won't, on making application for recognition of their foreign

credentials, be subject to further changes that may only delay the recognition of

those credentials, to obtain the licence or regulatory authority to practise in British

Columbia? This is largely what this bill set out to achieve.

Hon. A. Mercier: This question has been asked and answered. I'll briefly reiterate that regulatory

authorities are bound by the process and the principles of administrative fairness

and procedural justice under our law. I need to act in accordance with that as it

relates to their processes.

I would add a note of caution, as well, that it is conceivable that you would have

a professional regulatory body change bylaws or process that in fact remove further

barriers and further expedite the process. I'm sure the member is not suggesting that

in a situation like that, people who are already in the applicant process wouldn't

benefit from those changes.

[1:40 p.m.]

There's a lot of different variation among the 18 different professional regulators,

but I think the core point here is that they need to act in accordance with administrative

fairness and procedural justice, and they need to exercise their bylaws through the

application process with that in mind, which I'm sure they'll do.

G. Kyllo: Certainly, I was not in any way, shape or form suggesting that any consequential improvements

to the process would be potentially problematic for the applicant. I don't think any

applicant would be expressing concern about unfairness if the process is actually

improved.

The concern is that although the superintendent certainly has oversight, there's nothing

that would restrict a regulatory authority to change the bylaws or policies, which

could have a negative implication on the time frame by which an internationally trained

professional could have their credentials recognized here in British Columbia. It

is that specific concern that I'm trying to address, and I appreciate that the language

may not be set out specifically in the bill.

But I do recognize that some of the conversation and the inquiry that we're having

here today will help to inform both the superintendent and even the courts, should

there be challenges with respect to the implementation or the application of this

legislation.

Certainly, just trying to get a bit better understanding and commitment from the minister

on the minister's commitment to ensuring that in all instances, efforts are undertaken

to expedite and to increase the confidence an applicant may have when they approach

their regulatory authority for recognition of their foreign credentials.

Hon. A. Mercier: So that question has been asked and answered, which is that the process occurs within

the context of Canadian administrative law and the need to be fair in terms of the

administration of the regulatory procedures.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

G. Kyllo: Might the minister be able to explain what is meant by the phrase "a reasonable time"

section 14(

a) of this act?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This is one of the things that I heard about probably the most in speaking with internationally

trained professionals, which is the amount of time that is lost in processing time

for applications.

The term "reasonable time" is used here in order to denote flexibility as between

the regulators. Remember, we have 18 regulators in 29 professions, all of which are

different and have different assessment processes. What we want to do is set a standard.

So we use the term "reasonable," which is very well-worn in Canadian and British Columbian

law and the law of this Legislature, to set a standard but also to retain that flexibility.

Now, that being said, what this provision also allows us to do is to prescribe regulations

for maximum processing timelines, which it is our intention to do. We've begun that

engagement with regulatory bodies, and we'll continue that. Our intention is to have

that regulation in place for enforcement of the act.

G. Kyllo: I note that there is a lack of a reference in the definition

section to a reasonable

time. Can the minister maybe comment?

I appreciate that what might seem reasonable for a regulator may be different from

the perception of what would be reasonable from an applicant. I also appreciate that

different regulators may have different determinations for what would be reasonable.

I think a large part of the purpose of the legislation is to provide clarity so that

an applicant that holds a foreign professional credential will have some confidence

when they enter this system and make their application that there would be some semblance

of an understanding of the timeline, whether that be two weeks, two months, two years.

I would also venture to guess that the qualification is a different applicant. There

may be some applicants…. If they meet and satisfy all requirements, a reasonable timeline

may be only a couple of weeks. An individual that may have some missing pieces: that

application process could span months or, I think, as the minister had indicated,

in some instances the span of years.

I think there's certainly an opportunity to provide more clarity around what is deemed,

from the minister's perspective, a reasonable time. The legislation before us is really

silent. It fails to actually identify even any set parameters, whether it be two weeks

or two years, as I've set out.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Well, I would disagree that the act is silent in terms of limitations on timely determinations.

"Reasonable" is an objective standard. It's well-worn by case law. The reason that

we've employed that term and preserved the power to set maximum standards by regulation

and are doing further engagement is because of the diversity among the regulated professions.

I've talked a little bit in this House about Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.,

EGBC. EGBC is a profession that has thousands of international applicants. It also

has a staff and members of the profession that are very highly engaged in volunteering

time to help with that process. So it's in a different world of capacity than some

smaller regulators that might have significantly less applicants but that cause a

higher strain on their administrative ability.

What we want to do when we set a standard is make sure that that standard is achievable

by the regulator and that we hit that optimal standard, which is why we're doing engagement

with the regulatory authorities on what those limitations for timely determinations,

in their context, look like.

That work is being done. It's not concluded yet. It will allow us to come forward

with regulation, so that when this is enforced, the regulators know the maximum processing

standard that they have to meet. Across Canada, provinces vary on what that standard

is. In Ontario, for instance, it's six months.

What we need to do is look at where the capacity of the regulators is and what makes

sense, given how diverse they are, rather than set a standard in the legislation that

is a catch-all and that doesn't account for differences in capacity, differences in

regulatory context as well.

G. Kyllo: The minister brings up an interesting point about regulator capacity, which I think

initially sounds incredibly concerning.

If a regulator does not have the sophistication or the internal staff levels to deal

with and address a significant number of applicants, is the minister somehow suggesting

that the regulator will be able to make the argument back to the superintendent: "We

just don't have enough staff to process all of these. Therefore, we need a longer

time to process and make a final determination"? Now, I know that's not exactly what

the minister said, but it certainly is what I believe would lead from the comment

that the minister had shared.

If the internal capacity of the regulator will be part of the conversation, which

will provide the superintendent, I guess, advice with respect to determining what

may be reasonable for that specific regulator, that's incredibly concerning. That

will not provide any confidence to applicants or in any way, shape or form put additional

pressure on the regulator to staff up, per se, in order to meet those increasing applications

that may be forthcoming.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This is about making sure it's a balance. It's about making sure that the process

is as fast as it can possibly be for international applicants while still balancing

the public interest and the duties and responsibilities the regulated profession has

throughout its licensure process.

We want things to be able to be as fast as possible through the processing, which

is why we are doing the work right now through the credential improvement branch within

the ministry and through the OSPG. We are doing the work to engage with the regulated

professions on what realistic maximum timelines are, so that we can expedite this.

It's critically important.

Where there are capacity issues — because, yes, not every regulator is the same —

we are here to help with that. Government is here to help with that. That is the role

of the superintendent as well — to have that ongoing relationship with the regulators

and to help them leverage best practices, leverage funds like the credential assessment

improvement fund and leverage the talents of the office itself to maximize the processes

to meet those standards. But we need to hit maximum processing standards which, for

those professions, are achievable.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the challenge that the minister and, I think, even staff may have had

in trying to determine what would be a reasonable amount of time.

The minister, in his response, had indicated that staffing levels within a regulatory

authority will be taken into consideration in determining what would be a reasonable

time for the processing and the determination of the recognition of foreign credentials.

At the outset of our debate, I've continually brought up the challenge and — I think,

maybe — the lack of rigour that has been put around understanding what the magnitude

of the problem is.

A regulator that may only see two applications a month or 24 in a year may require

a set of staff in order to, as the minister has indicated, in a reasonable amount

of time, process and make a determination. Once a maximum is set…. I don't know; maybe

the minister might be able to share when he determines when that maximum time frame

will be established. Once that maximum timeline is established, if it is based, indeed,

on two applications a month or 24 in a year, with a set complement of staff in a regulatory

authority….

What happens if suddenly there are seven or eight applications a month, a fourfold

increase in the number of applications? Is it then going to be upon the obligation

of the regulator to staff up to meet and ensure that they have necessary staff to

achieve a determination within a set maximum amount of time that the minister is suggesting?

Without an understanding of how many people are coming in the front door, it is impossible

for a regulator to determine how, and the staffing level that is required in order

to make an appropriate determination in what will be a set maximum amount of time.

[2:00 p.m.]

I'm certainly not trying to be cute, but I think there are some big holes with respect

to the process. I think regulators will also be incredibly concerned if they are going

to be at the receiving end of a maximum time frame to make a determination. They may

lack sufficient staff resources to ensure that the applicant has all of their information

reviewed and has provided all that information.

Well, I don't know if we're going to actually end up with the positive outcome, which

is more credentials recognized and professionals being able to work here. If there's

a maximum time frame that is established and the regulator does not have sufficient

resources, well, they'll just make a determination, which is no. That will set, likely,

a whole other set of circumstances into play, which we'll get to in a minute.

With respect to the establishment of a maximum time frame, the minister has indicated

that will be, in part, in consultation with determination of the capacity of the office.

Will that also take into consideration the average expected number of applicants and

the complexity? I think we all know that every applicant will not take the same amount

of processing time.

I'm just trying to better understand how this maximum will be determined and how regulators

will understand how this maximum time frame will be established? Is it going to take

into consideration the applicants that are currently coming in the door, the complexity

of those applications?

Will the superintendent proactively extend the time frame, the maximum time frame,

should there be a significant increase in the number of applicants seeking to have

their international credentials recognized here in B.C.?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member. I think, largely, the member has answered his question through

his question, with his illustrations, which is that sometimes circumstances change.

It is important that we have an objective standard, reasonable timelines in a reasonable

time in the legislation so that we have the flexibility to deal with changed circumstances.

The member has given one illustration example. It could easily go the other way as

well. It could be that, over a period of time, the advice comes from the superintendent's

office that a regulator could actually be meeting a much quicker timeline than they

are. We may want to change those timelines to reflect that. The regulation-making

power allows us to do that. It also allows us to set classes of regulators for timelines

so that we can more appropriately adapt to that environment.

But the purpose of keeping the objective standard of reasonable in the legislation

is so that we have the flexibility to deal with the situation on the ground which

can very well reflect changed circumstances over time.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister providing that clarification, and I would agree that all

applications are probably not equal or require an equivalent amount of processing

time.

[2:05 p.m.]

What I'm hearing is the minister would suggest the opportunity for different classes

of applications. So potentially an applicant that maybe meets all of the requirements

may be expedited, and an individual applicant that may not necessarily achieve all

of the requirements of the regulator at the outset may take more processing time to

provide that applicant the opportunity, the time, to actually submit further information

to further support their application.

Hon. A. Mercier: So the regulation allows for different classifications of regulators and regulatory

authorities, not of applicants, and the timelines apply to complete applications from

the internationally trained applicant.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister clarifying that.

Would the minister agree that applications that are presented to a regulator for evaluation

for making a final determination — that they're not all created equal, and some applications

may be easier and simpler and take less administrative time to process than others?

Hon. A. Mercier: Not every application is going to be created equal in terms of the variety of factors

within it. Managing the process of the applications is rightfully the job of the regulatory

authorities.

They'll have to do it within the context and the rules set forward by this act, and

the superintendent's office will be there working with the regulators on these matters,

and also through a lot of the other provisions that we've already canvassed, monitoring

for systemic issues and patterns for systemic issues, which can then be addressed

if they do present themselves.

G. Kyllo: I have, in my relatively short career as an MLA, been on the receiving end of many

complaints from constituents that have been faced with making applications for everything

from maybe a subdivision approval to a lease renewal.

[2:10 p.m.]

It has been pretty clear — whether it's municipal government, the Ministry of Transportation,

which has subdivision approval responsibility for rural British Columbians, or even

within the Ministry of Forests for tenure applications — that the clock does not start

counting until all of the information and requirements are furnished.

Can the minister provide any confirmation to this House: at what point in time will

the regulator be required to start the clock?

I'm just thinking of an applicant that may be applying to have their international

professional credentials recognized here in British Columbia, maybe from Australia.

They make an initial application. As a process, that application is reviewed. There's

a determination that additional information is required, which may take a period of

months. I'm just wondering. At what point in time will the minister and the superintendent

start the clock, so to speak, as far as determining what that time frame is? I think

that's incredibly important.

I have spoken to individuals — probably not much unlike the minister has, driving

cabs or otherwise — that say: "I'm a doctor from Bangladesh, and I'm having trouble

getting my credentials recognized here." On further inquiring, "Did you ever satisfy

all of the requirements for a proper assessment?" the answer quite often is no. I'm

certainly not saying that is always the case, but I think it is important that there

be a clear understanding of when the clock will start, as far as determining what

that maximum time frame might be.

Hon. A. Mercier: Subsection 14(

a) spells it out: "…within a reasonable time after receiving a complete

application from an internationally trained applicant."

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister for pointing that out.

What efforts were undertaken, either by the minister directly or by staff, with respect

to the consultative process in reaching out to different regulatory authorities to

determine what the time frame has been for them to make a final determination on an

application, once they have satisfied all of the requirements, as the minister has

just referenced?

Hon. A. Mercier: That work in engaging with the regulators has started with the engagement on the draft

guidelines and standards. That was canvassed during that process, and it continues

now as the engagement on regulation, under this

section for maximum processing timelines,

is being put together.

[2:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Is the minister confirming that he has no knowledge of the minimum, maximum or average

time frame for a regulator to make a final determination in advance of tabling this

legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: This is a point that we've canvassed at length previously during this debate. There

is great diversity, among the regulatory authorities that will be under this act,

in who measures, in what they're measuring and in the comparability of what they're

measuring.

The frustration, I think, that a lot of folks feel as to opaqueness of regulatory

processes partly stems from a lack of eyes on the problem. It is exactly why we need

this act. It is exactly why we need the office of the superintendent, and we need

the provisions here so that we can do that work and establish it.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the consultation process and the work that was undertaken in

order to produce the report, What We Heard: Public Engagement . There were many, I believe, even thousands of submissions.

Was there any effort undertaken by the minister or minister's staff to determine that

the concerns that were raised were related to how long it takes a regulator to make

a decision once they've been furnished with all of the information? In the example

that I provided, I certainly believe that a large majority of complaints come from

individuals who were not able to fully satisfy the requirements. There are some pieces

of this legislation that do address it — with respect to language comprehension, as

an example.

However, to say that because somebody complained about the length of the process….

Those need to be separated from those that have actually satisfied the requirement.

It would be unfair to characterize the regulators as the problem if we haven't first

identified the magnitude of the problem, if the regulators have not been engaged in

providing that raw data. We all have heard the terms: "If you can't measure it, you

can't manage it; data drives decisions." There is an absence of data.

If the concern is that applicants had come forward to have their credentials recognized,

if they're having a prolonged amount of time to satisfy the requirements of the regulator

as far as furnishing that information, well, that problem does not lie with the regulator.

There may be opportunities for the minister, through work with educational institutions

and otherwise, to assist those people, but that's not the regulator's problem.

If, indeed, the data has suggested that the regulator has applicants that have furnished

all the information, and the regulator is sitting on their hands for years, well,

that might lead to a different conclusion. It does not appear that the minister or

the minister's office or staff have undertaken that work. If they have undertaken

or developed that work, we certainly aren't seeing it here.

Unless we can see the magnitude of the problem clearly articulated, I don't see how

this legislation is going to lead to an improved outcome.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister seems reticent to put those measurements in place so that we can actually

measure the success of the organization. The minister has shared that in the case

of the maximum timeline, well, that'll be subjective. It will be subject to the different

classification of the regulator. It will be subject to the amount of staff that they

potentially may have.

The minister has shared that in the case of the maximum timeline, well, that'll be

subjective. It'll be subjective to the different classification of the regulator.

It'll be subject to the amount of staff that they potentially may have.

The minister references the term "as fast as possible." That could also mean many

things. Does that mean that regulators should deny vacation time or demand overtime

so we can do it as fast as possible? These things are all very subjective.

I would suggest that the regulators, currently, are probably doing their best, once

they have all the necessary information, to process the applications. But it's not

going to be the same. Every application will have different complexities and may take

a different timeline.

If the minister somehow thinks that the superintendent establishing and drawing a

line in the sand that, "This will be the date by which a determination is made…."

I do not see how that is going to actually result in an increased rate or a reduced

amount of time for applicants to actually be processed.

Back to, specifically, this clause. "Reasonable," I guess, from what we can see, has

a huge variation. It could probably be everything from two months to two years. If

the minister believes that a reasonable time frame is something less than two years,

I certainly would appreciate hearing that directly from him here today.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through the Chair to the member, I would say that the position that the member is

forwarding is, in a sense, nonsensical. On the one hand, he's saying that government

ought to be spending more time working with the regulators and being sensitive to

their regulatory environment, to a basket of issues that in some instances, are outside

of their locus of control. On the other hand, he says that we shouldn't be working

with the regulators to set flexible requirements on an objective standard so we actually

have achievable requirements we can meet.

[2:25 p.m.]

I mean, that is the heart of the issue here, which is that we need to have the best

possible set of timelines. That is what we're talking about here right now, which

is setting timelines for timely determinations.

This can't be read in isolation from the rest of the act, the purposes of the act,

and the different powers and limitations set out within the act. It is an important

piece of it. And the goal of the work is underway right now to set those reasonable

timelines, through regulation under this section.

It's an incredibly important part of what needs to happen. It's by no means all of

what needs to happen. And I would just say it. I would repeat that for all of the

reasons that the member has laid out and keeps coming back to canvassing the point

about data, that is exactly why we need this legislation. We need to have this ability

to be able to set those standards and to do that data collection so we can get a good,

systemic view of the process across the board so that we can then go and look for

further efficiencies.

G. Kyllo: I certainly don't believe that the minister has demonstrated that the regulators,

the existing processes that they're undertaking and the time frames by which they

are utilizing in order to make a final determination are any different from what the

minister is proposing.

The minister is proposing that staff capacities will take be taken into consideration

and has indicated that the classification of the different professions will be taken

into consideration. The minister can't share with this House what "reasonable" actually

would look like. So with all due respect, I fail to see how the outcome of this will

be necessarily any different than the outcomes that are already existing.

If the minister and his staff have undertaken that work and actually asked the regulators

to provide timelines on how much time it takes to recognize the credentials of an

international professional…. Once all the information is submitted and they clearly

have all of the information in order to make a determination, we don't even know what

that number is, because I don't know that the regulators have been asked.

If they have been asked, the information certainly hasn't been forthcoming. If we

determine…. If the minister has done the work, I certainly hope that he'll share with

this committee and with the general public. But if the maximum time frame currently

for an individual who submits all of their required information is nine months, well,

so be it. It's nine months.

But we don't know what it is, and the minister can't say that this legislation will

provide any kind of a time frame that's anything less than what the regulator may

be already utilizing. So I'm incredibly, I guess, just frustrated and fail to see

how what's set out here is going to actually result in any improvement. The minister

has been reticent or reluctant to actually agree to the collection of the necessary

data so we can see that there's been a net improvement. How will we know, a year or

two from now, whether we've actually seen any net benefit?

With respect to

section 14, the minister has shared some of the information that will

be utilized in order to determine that maximum time frame. Does the minister also

determine, through this legislation and work in consultation with the superintendent,

to put a requirement of an average processing time for applications that have submitted

all of the appropriate information?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I know he's thoroughly read the what-we-heard report multiple times. As we went through

the engagements, we asked internationally trained professionals to describe to us

their experience with the process and their experience with timelines.

The difference between how internationally trained professionals experience timelines

and the way domestically trained professionals experience timelines was very, very

stark, in my view. It speaks to the need for this legislation. I'm not going to now,

through this response, go back and re-canvass the days we've spent talking about the

need for data requirements and the work that we're doing there and that we're going

to be doing on that.

Suffice to say that, as far as the member asking about average timelines, that is

something that will be collected through the annual report process for the regulators

that, I'm sure we will talk about in a later provision, stipulates that.

I go back to the point about internationally trained professionals and the way that

the timeline is experienced and the way that they told us they experience time barriers

and process delays and to not lose sight that it's the internationally trained professional

here that we're trying to improve the process for. A part of that is giving the certainty

and clarity for them of the expectations around the timeline.

Having a maximum processing timeline for a complete application does that, as opposed

to an average processing timeline requirement for an application, which I think would

be experienced in a very nebulous way for an internationally trained professional

trying to figure out what does that mean for them.

So having a maximum processing timeline is an important tool. But make no mistake,

the effect of this legislation is going to be that we are able to track and to ascertain

what the average processing timelines are.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the consultation that was undertaken with the regulators, was any

information or data obtained with respect to the administrative time that might be

undertaken by an office in reviewing an application?

Let's cast aside all of the communication there may be with an applicant to get all

the information in. Once all of the information is furnished to a regulator, does

the minister have any semblance of the administrative time, whether that be eight

hours, 16 hours, 50 hours to actually process an application and get to the point

where they can make that final determination? Does the minister have a sense of the

amount of time?

I appreciate there could be a wide range, but was that information sought from the

regulators, and does the ministry and their staff have a good understanding of the

administrative time for processing applications?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: As I responded previously, we've begun that work with the process in reaching out

to regulators around the draft guidelines, and we're continuing that work now on the

engagement leading to a regulation setting of those timelines.

G. Kyllo: It's important to note that this bill has been drafted without a clear understanding

of how much administrative time an office may actually undertake in even reviewing

an application, which I believe is unfortunate. I'm almost finished my inquiry on

this particular section.

The minister had offered up, with respect to the maximum timeline, and gave reference

to another jurisdiction, maybe another province, another regulator that has established

a maximum timeline of six months. Would the minister agree that a processing timeline

of two years would be grossly unfair and unjust?

Hon. A. Mercier: The work on setting the maximum timelines is happening right now with the regulatory

authorities. I'm not going to….

My point of view and what I've said has been clear. I've stated multiple times for

the member. I do not believe the processing timeline should take one minute longer

than it needs to take. In order to ascertain what that is across the particular regulatory

authorities, we need to do the work with those regulatory authorities, which we are

doing appropriately and in time with where we need to be for enforcement of this act.

I'm not going to speculate on timelines for any given regulatory authority while we're

working hand in hand with those regulatory authorities, to come to that conclusion

in doing that work. That is a conversation that is happening and ongoing, but it should

not take one minute longer than it needs to take.

G. Kyllo: Look. The maximum timeline is largely what this is all about. The purpose of the legislation

is to ensure that applicants are going to have a timely processing of their applications

and find out what that determination is.

[2:40 p.m.]

I appreciate that there would be a different timeline maybe for an engineer rather

than a veterinarian. Those are very different and distinct, and I appreciate that

the regulators will have a duty and a responsibility to ensure public safety and animal

health and welfare and all those sort of things in their determination. But surely,

once all the information is furnished to the regulator, there must be some understanding

of the administrative processing time. Then, also, what would be reasonable?

If the minister doesn't feel comfortable in saying that the maximum timeline should

be something two years or less, would the minister be willing to agree that it should

be three years or less?

Hon. A. Mercier: The member has asked me the same question with a slight variation, so the answer remains

the same, except I will say that I don't agree with the characterization of this legislation

as merely being about timelines.

Yes, timelines are an important part of dealing with the range of issues faced by

internationally trained professionals. But what this is about is making sure that

the international credential assessment process is fair, transparent, expeditious

and efficient, which is what this legislation does through a whole series of different

measures, including the removal of Canadian work experience requirements, including

limitations on unnecessary language testing and expiry dates for language tests.

The timelines are an aspect of it. We're doing that work. We're doing the work right

now with regulators and preparing regulation, and there will be maximum timelines

set.

G. Kyllo: Well, it's indeed, I think, unfortunate that the minister doesn't feel confident.

I'm assuming that international applicants who may be making application may be concerned

that the minister doesn't feel that three years less a day is a reasonable amount

of time for their application to be processed.

Look, the minister volunteered six months. I think that there has been a lack of rigour

around the amount of administration time in order to make a decision. I shared, previously,

an example of an internationally trained iron worker that may be in Ireland that has

the requirement of additional costs associated with only being able to take their

qualification test on Canadian soil. The costs associated with that and efforts that

government can undertake in order to improve that and reduce that cost burden — that's

directly under the auspices of the minister. We haven't seen that movement.

Although it's not related directly to this, I think this does speak to government

wanting to reach in and tell other regulators how they should conduct their affairs

— what's reasonable or what's not reasonable — without necessarily obtaining the necessary

data.

If we don't know…. Ministry staff have not clearly understood what the administrative

time is for a regulator to process an application — has no idea or is certainly unwilling

to share how many applications they process on a monthly basis — and has no ability

to even demonstrate for this committee what the average or the maximum timelines are

and then is also further unwilling to commit to a maximum timeline of even three years.

As an example, I can share that a community I represent, Salmon Arm, has been looking

for a lease renewal on a waterfront park so they can do some significant improvements.

They've been waiting for three years.

[2:45 p.m.]

I've been told, under good counsel, that the administrative processing time for a

lease renewal is eight hours — eight hours administration time. This community has

been waiting three years and has been told that now it will be a further year.

Now, this is something that government has direct control over. To expect a community

to wait four years for a determination on a lease renewal application that's eight

hours of administration…. Yet this government and this minister, with all due respect,

is choosing to reach in to a regulator without actually undertaking the significant

work to determine what the magnitude of the problem is.

This particular

section clearly sets out the requirement for a regulator to make a

determination. I'm assuming that determination could either be positive, in which

case they're going to grant credentials, or it could be a negative determination,

which would be: "No, you do not satisfy the requirement."

In the case of the regulator maybe having a timeline placed upon them that is unachievable

for them to fully vet the application and information in order to come to the determination

of a positive outcome and facing a deadline that's going to be imposed by the superintendent

in order to meet and satisfy that requirement…. Should that regulator have to make

a decision hastily, because they may not have fully vetted that application, and make

a negative determination, what is the opportunity and the obligation for that applicant?

Is there an opportunity for them to appeal? Is there an opportunity for them to have

to reapply? What plight would that applicant be in, in the case that a regulator has

a self-imposed deadline put upon them by the superintendent? Should they make a negative

determination, what avenues does the applicant have to reapply or to seek an appeal

or an extension?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I think what the member has done is…. He has illustrated pretty clearly exactly why

we need to work with the regulators on setting timelines that are achievable and maximum

processing timelines that are achievable.

Every professional regulatory authority that I've engaged with throughout this process

and that the team has engaged with throughout this process takes their job and their

role incredibly seriously. So working with them to make sure that we get to achievable

timelines, where they are able to weigh and adjudicate applications appropriately,

is important.

I would say on the question of internal processes for an applicant who is denied….

I mean, the reality is…. With any application process, there will be people that need

it and people that don't. That process has to be weighed by the regulator as part

of them looking at the substantive competencies that are required. There is a diversity

of regulators with a diversity of statutes, rules and procedures that will have different

processes for denied applicants. Those go back to the general processes of those regulators.

One thing that this act does is ensure that those processes are made transparent and

known to the internationally trained professionals through publication on the website.

G. Kyllo: The minister, in a previous response, I believe, indicated that it would be the expectation

that those maximum timelines would be set in the summer of 2024. Can the minister

confirm that there will be maximum timelines established for all of the 18 regulators,

covering all 29 professions, that are covered under this act?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Yes.

G. Kyllo: With respect to this specific

section on…. When it states "timely determinations"….

Under

section (b), it states…. Maybe I'll start by stating that

section 14 says: "A

regulatory authority must make a determination in an international credential assessment

process." So (

a) we've canvassed quite extensively. And (b): "no later than within

the period prescribed by the minister, if any."

Can the minister provide some clarity on the addition of those two last words, "if

any"? It certainly would seem that there may be a determination…. Maybe a timeline

would not be established, a maximum timeline for a set profession or a regulatory

body.

If that is not the case, I wonder if the legislation should potentially be amended

so that the minister and the ministry's office would be compelled to establish a maximum

timeline for all, as the minister has alluded to in his previous response.

Hon. A. Mercier: The "if any" at the end of 14(

b) is a convention of statutory drafting. It's conceivable

that the act could operate without those timelines set by regulation. That is not

our intention. Our intention is to have the regulation prepared and in place for when

the act comes into enforcement.

G. Kyllo: That's, I certainly believe, incredibly concerning. If the minister has indicated….

It is certainly the intention of the minister that maximum timelines will be employed

for all of the 18 regulators, covering 29 professions, by the summer of next year,

but the legislation actually sets out a carve-out which does not compel, in any way,

the minister to even establish timelines.

It's quite conceivable that either the minister…. A position could change. The direction

from cabinet could change. It could be pushed back from a regulator, and we could

be sitting here next summer with, potentially, no maximum timelines established.

That is what the legislation actually provides for. If that is indeed the case…. Although

it provides, I guess, the opportunity for establishing, there's nothing that actually

compels the minister to make that determination.

[3:00 p.m.]

Much of our conversation and dialogue has led to…. I believe even some of the responses

from the minister have indicated that it would be the superintendent that would make

that determination, yet the legislation states it would be the minister that makes

the determination.

Can the minister confirm who will actually make the ultimate determination? Will it

indeed be the superintendent, or will it be the minister?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The superintendent would make an assessment of what is a reasonable time, looking

at the process. But the regulation as to the maximum processing time is set by regulation,

by the minister. I can assure the member that work is ongoing now. That engagement

is happening now, and those regulations will be ready for enforcement of the act in

summer of 2024.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated that this is a long-standing problem. I know it's something

that has been on my radar for a while now. I appreciate that we're near six years

into the current term of this government to bring forward this legislation.

There's an understanding that the regulations are underway and being developed and,

as the minister has indicated, it's certainly his intention to see that the maximum

timeline would be in play by next summer, which I assume would indicate that the regulations

will be completed sometime this spring.

Can the minister confirm that the regulations will actually be in effect and that

internationally trained professionals that are seeking to have their credentials recognized

in B.C. will see the regulation in play and activated by summer of 2024?

Hon. A. Mercier: Yes, that's the intention.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister carefully, I guess cautiously,

indicated the intention, and I appreciate that.

Can the minister identify any issues or concerns that may arise that might not allow

the minister to follow through with his intention?

Hon. A. Mercier: The intention is to have…. The work is underway. The work is happening, underway and,

I'm advised by the team, on

schedule to be done for September 2024, with enforcement.

The member has asked me to identify circumstances outside of government's control

that may interfere with that work. I'm incredibly hesitant to speculate on improbable

events, particularly after having lived through a global pandemic that disrupted the

modern functioning of society to a degree that I don't think anyone was prepared for

or thought would happen.

There's always a possibility that something highly improbable occurs, but all things

being equal, the work is underway. The work is happening according to pace, and the

regulations will be ready in summer of 2024.

G. Kyllo: My inquiry was not about things outside of government's control. My inquiry was anything

that may be within government's control.

Is there anything that is under government's control that the minister believes could

negatively impact the ability of the regulations to be in play and of internationally

trained professionals to have confidence that the regulations that the minister and

his team will be developing will be in play for summer of 2024?

Hon. A. Mercier: No.

[3:05 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Just one further point of clarification on clause 14(b), the reference that I read

into the record earlier about "no later than within the period prescribed by the minister,

if any." Can the minister provide a definition of what is determined or what the minister

references when the legislation states "period prescribed"?

Hon. A. Mercier: The amount of time prescribed by regulation.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister state how the superintendent will confirm the determination regarding

an internationally trained applicant will be achieved?

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, a determination is a defined term in the beginning

of the act, which stems to when a regulatory authority makes a decision to grant or

not grant a certification or if a certification is granted, whether or not to impose

limitations on that.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. What I'm trying to seek to obtain is

that it's been identified that once all of the information from an applicant is received,

that is when the clock would start to tick. We haven't made any determinations on

how the superintendent would know when that particular applicant has satisfied the

application requirements, in which case, the clock would start.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then further to that would be: when a determination is made, how will the superintendent

also be notified and when the determination is made? Is there a requirement of the

regulator to provide real-time notification to the superintendent, both at the outset…?

An applicant has satisfied all of the requirements, we will then notify the superintendent

that applicant A has met all of the requirements and that his or her review process

is underway. Subsequent to that, when they make a determination, will there be any

requirement for the regulator to provide real-time notification to the superintendent's

office with respect to what that timeline is?

Just trying to understand the mechanics of this. Or will it be up to the regulator

to put an annual report out at the end of the year and then the superintendent will

have to maneuver through that to find out if they were on target or off target? I'm

just trying to better understand the mechanics.

I would suggest that there would likely be — and this may be part of the development

of — the regulation that there would be a requirement for regulators within maybe

a ten-day period of time, once an application has satisfied all the requirements,

that there's a notification, and likewise when a determination is made.

I'm just hoping the minister can provide some clarification on how the superintendent

will be aware of both the start and finish line of those application reviews.

Hon. A. Mercier: Ultimately, this provision is about fairness for the internationally trained applicants

— certainty and clarity.

I can appreciate where the member is coming from, but it would be administratively

unfeasible to deluge the superintendent with notices of every determination or communication

of a determination that's made in a process. The superintendent does have a wide range

of powers, and we've canvassed them throughout this debate, in terms of monitoring

the regulatory authorities, not the least of which are the annual reports.

There are also complaints driven by individual applicants that can raise it with the

superintendent, as well as both the inspection and audit powers of the superintendent,

which we'll get to, I'm sure, in debate.

This is about setting out certainty and clarity so that the process is fair and transparent

for the applicant, which is why it also includes a provision that the determination,

once it's made, be communicated with reasons and in writing for the applicant.

G. Kyllo: If I'm understanding the minister's response correctly, there will be no real-time

reporting or advisement to the superintendent on the number of applications that are

coming in the door, how many applications they have actually achieved, all of the

requisite information for them to actually undertake an evaluation.

[3:15 p.m.]

There will be no reporting out on whether the regulator has actually achieved to issue

or make a determination within the maximum period, other than the review of an annual

report, 12 or 14 or 16 months down the road.

It would seem to me that if it was the purview of the superintendent to have an ability

to actually manage the process, I would certainly suggest the minister or the superintendent

and his staff would want to have a good understanding of if the applications are increasing

for a set regulatory authority or if they're declining, and how many applications

have actually satisfied the requirement, in order to in any way, shape or form have

a bit of predetermination on what the workload might be. As the minister has previously

indicated, the workflow or the workload of the office and their staffing complement

will have an impact on timelines.

If I can understand the minister correctly, or if I have understood him correctly,

to have a look at a fixed timeline being put in place as early as this summer, which

will take into consideration, as the minister has indicated, the staffing complement

of the office, the number of applicants….

If there's no monitoring of that process throughout the year and the regulator gets

to the end of the year and finds out that for 50 percent of their applicants the determinations

were not made within the requisite period — and their argument or excuse is, "Well,

we had twice as many applicants as we anticipated, and we didn't have the ability

to onboard enough staff" — then what is the sense of having a finite maximum timeline

unless it's being managed in some form other than just a review process once a year?

Hon. A. Mercier: I'll say a few things, and I answered this, for the most part, in my previous response.

The superintendent will get the information, but they won't get it hourly. We want

the regulators to be focused on processing applications, not on sending notifications

continuously to the superintendent. It is a manageable group of regulatory authorities

with a team already in place at the ministry that has good working relationships with

them.

I would think that if a regulator was struggling, and they knew they were struggling

because they did have an uptick, there's no reason to suggest they wouldn't be proactive

on that as they went about doing their work and preparing their data, which they have

to do anyway.

That work is all going to happen. It's all going to be done, but it's not going to

be done every hour or every day. The value in that…. There's more harm in that than

value.

I think this sets out the appropriate timeline. But just with the point here that

we're really talking about

section 15, communication and determinations. This clause,

and what we're talking about, allows for communication of those determinations within

a set period of time, which gives some certainty and fairness for the international

applicants.

G. Kyllo: I would suggest, actually, that the opposite is true. The applicant, in submitting

their information to a regulator for determination, at the outset may understand that

the maximum timeline that might be determined and established and communicated to

the regulator…. Let's assume it's 12 months.

So the applicant submits their information to the regulator, has confidence that the

timeline that's set out…. Let's just arbitrarily assume it's 12 months. They are assuming

that they're going to have a firm decision or determination by the office within 24

months. The regulator has the ability of putting additional conditions on that applicant,

which could change things.

In addition, the number of applications coming into the regulator, as well as the

staffing complement, could provide justification for the regulator to go back to the

superintendent and say: "Look, we've got five times as many applications as we initially

anticipated. We can't staff up sufficiently. The timeline that is determined at 12

months is no longer sufficient. It needs to be 18."

[3:20 p.m.]

Where is the confidence and the surety to the applicant, who was told and had assurance

that the maximum timeline was 12 months, when conditions outside of their control,

and certainly outside of the control of the regulator, as far as an increased number

of applicants, and even maybe staff changes or challenges within the staff in that

organization will only allow the superintendent to make a determination as much as

a year later that, jeez, you know, you've got way more applicants than you intended.

The 12-month timeline is probably unachievable. We're just going to extend it to 18

months.

So I do not see the certainty that the minister is trying to provide with respect

to the legislation when there is such a lack of effort that has been undertaken to

clearly articulate and determine the magnitude of the challenge of the problem.

The average number of applicants that each regulator is receiving, the minimum or

maximum timelines — what would be a reasonable number? But the minister won't even

commit to indicating that three years is the maximum outside timeline it could be.

For all we know, it could be something more than that.

I do not see how there's going to be any certainty provided to the applicant. The

real-time reporting or some way for the superintendent to even measure or track the

number of applicants coming in — it seems to not exist.

I hope the minister can provide some confidence or confirmation that that, indeed,

will be part of the regulation and that will be part of the work. Fair enough. Maybe

it doesn't have to be in real-time, maybe not every day. Maybe it's monthly, or maybe

it's quarterly.

Certainly, reviewing the number of applicants and the pass or fail or the ability

of the regulator to meet that maximum timeline…. Reporting on that once a year is

grossly inadequate if we want to have any opportunity to actually learn from this

exercise and be able to provide the encouragement to the different regulators to on-board

additional staff or other changes that are necessary to provide a consistent timeline

for those internationally trained professionals looking to have their credentials

recognized here in B.C.

Hon. A. Mercier: Those questions have been asked and answered through the debate here. I'm just wondering

if the member has any questions about communication and determinations under clause

G. Kyllo: Absolutely.

Can the minister explain how the determination of 14 days was determined to be an

appropriate timeline for a regulatory authority to provide determination to the internationally

trained applicant?

Hon. A. Mercier: Once a determination has been made on an application, the regulator will know what

that decision is and why they made the decision. So this is a period of time in order

for them to, effectively, write a letter detailing their reasons.

We looked at other statutes when we did that jurisdictional scan that we canvassed

earlier. I'll give an example. I mean, it's a pretty standard and non-controversial

amount of time to make sure that that happens.

[3:25 p.m.]

Alberta has ten business days, which is the same as 14 calendar days — two weeks.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain what is meant by the phrase "prescribed requirement" in

section

16(

b) of this act? I guess, further to that, if I may, if the minister could provide

an example.

Hon. A. Mercier: What this

section does is it prohibits the Canadian work experience requirement. The

member is quite right in pointing out that 16(

b) is leaving room for this government

and for subsequent governments to prescribe another prohibition.

I mean, we've talked before and at length about the change in, kind of, the regulatory

landscape and the need to keep up with changing social facts in society. What this

does is it makes sure that this government and any subsequent governments preserve

a power to add prohibitions, should there be some ill in the process that that government

identifies as being rising to the level of requiring a prohibition.

It's hard to come up with an example right now because everything that we went through

in engagement, where it suitably rose to that level, we made sure to include in the

legislation. But that's not to say that the international credential assessment process

may not evolve in a way that doesn't create other issues or other unfair and unnecessary

barriers for internationally trained professionals. We need to make sure that government

has the ability to address that.

G. Kyllo: If I go back to earlier sections of the bill…. The minister, through much of his commentary,

has indicated the, I guess, necessity and the responsibility of the regulator to ensure

public safety. I do know that with some regulatory authorities and some professions,

actual Canadian work experience is incredibly important in order to have evidence

and, I guess, to provide confidence to the regulator that an internationally trained

professional actually clearly understands their scope of work and their profession

in the Canadian context.

This specific regulation clearly sets out…. It's a reverse onus, where the regulator

is no longer allowed to place Canadian work experience as a condition of employment.

I'm quite certain that many regulators have that in play for a specific reason, to

ensure that different professionals have a good understanding of their profession

as it applies in the Canadian context. So I'll certainly have some additional questions

about that, about the process that might be available to seek an exemption where that

responsibility lies.

With specific reference to any prescribed requirements, it certainly appears, and

the minister has indicated, that this opens the door for the government to provide

further exemptions.

[3:30 p.m.]

We think of a veterinarian as an example. I think for a veterinarian that comes out

of graduate school, there's a requirement, a requisite for work experience — I'm not

sure; they might call it an internship or otherwise — as part of the requirement in

order to satisfy the regulatory authority and to be able to prove up their ability

to actually perform the profession.

My nervousness with this particular clause is that that may open the door for this

government or future governments to continue to utilize this legislation without the

scrutiny of the House to make further changes, to further diminish the ability of

the regulator to put specific work experience requirements or otherwise on those professions

by which they ultimately have responsibility and liability associated with.

I'm very uncomfortable with this clause. I'm not sure if the minister can share any

other information as far as other safeguards that may be in play. I'm always nervous

when there's too much left up to regulation, because regulation can be undertaken

through an order-in-council without any scrutiny of this House.

I believe that something as important as the work experience of internationally trained

professionals, that the regulators should have more confidence that if there's going

to be any further erosion — and I'll suggest it's an erosion; the minister may have

a different

interpretation — of their ability to require specific work experience,

that any of those future changes should be subject and left to changes in legislation

to ensure that there's full scrutiny of that and that those undertakings are not done

simply around the cabinet table.

I hope the minister might be able to…. Maybe there's other information that he has

at his fingertips that he can actually share with us to give us a bit more confidence

that the regulators should have confidence there's nothing else that could be undertaken

through regulation that would negatively impact their ability to have ultimate authority

over the issuance of credential recognition for internationally trained professionals.

Hon. A. Mercier: I appreciate the member's comments, and I'll say a few things. First off, Canadian

work experience requirements are something we heard about, and that I heard about

personally, across the board during the engagement process, not just from internationally

trained professionals, but from professional regulatory authorities as well, many

of whom told me frankly that those work experience requirements are actually used

as a proxy because they're not, in fact, measuring competencies or skills or doing

competency assessments or skills.

There are, in fact, many regulators that are working to move away from those Canadian

work experience requirements because, effectively, what they're doing is a yardstick

to measure something they're not actually measuring, which is the competency in skills.

What we want as government is for regulators to move towards those competency and

skill assessments.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, I know the member's point was about regulation and about the importance of legislative

scrutiny and debate, like we're having now, clause by clause, in, I think, a very

thorough way, which is helpful for posterity and for the regulatory community, among

others.

It's obviously incredibly important, which is why when we drafted this legislation,

we endeavored, wherever possible, to ensure that prohibitions and standards were in

the body of the legislation itself and that where there is regulatory authority, it

is there to deal with changing social facts and to provide flexibility, like we talked

about previously, with timelines for complex situations and, as well, potential changing

facts on the ground.

What this particular regulatory power does under 16(

b) is, like I said, that it allows

government, this government or a future government, to create a prohibition on professional

regulators for the process. I said, when I answered the question previously, it's

difficult to think of an example of that because using this regulatory power is not

something that this government is contemplating. It is not something that we are doing

engagement on or working on. We have no intention right now of bringing regulation

forward under that.

In the interest of transparency, I can say that, because we endeavored…. During the

drafting, where we had areas where we wanted to make substantial progress, like the

Canadian work experience requirement itself or like the prohibitions around the use

of language tests, we put those directly into the legislation so that this scrutiny

could happen.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. On face value, this legislation actually

diminishes the ability of a regulator to have a specific requirement on internationally

trained professionals seeking to have their credentials recognized in B.C. As I mentioned

in my last question, it's a reverse onus.

The legislation, on face value, takes away the ability of the regulator to have a

Canadian work experience requirement. And as much as there may be very common similarities,

maybe between Canada and the United States just as an easy example, when you look

at engineering, the differences between maybe the Canadian context, the North American

context and a country like Nepal or other countries would be very stark and very different.

So the Canadian work context, I think, is incredibly important.

Now, I appreciate that there is the opportunity set out in this legislation for the

regulator to seek an exemption. But the legislation is silent or doesn't provide any

detail on what that time frame looks like.

What does the application look like? If a regulator is seeking exemption from this

particular piece of legislation, how quickly do they have to respond? Are they subject

to the superintendent just saying no, or will, in all instances where the regulator

can present a logical argument on the value of Canadian work experience in order to

ensure that those internationally trained professionals meet the high standard of

the regulator…?

Does the regulator have the ability of advancing that argument and having confidence

that the superintendent or the minister doesn't just simply choose to deny it? I think

the challenge would be, for a majority of regulators, that they will continue to see

that the Canadian work experience requirement is significantly important.

If it indeed is the determination of the superintendent to, in all cases, not want

to weigh in or negatively impact the ability of the regulator to put that as a condition

and choose to go in a different direction and say, "Well, fair enough. You made a

good argument, but we feel it's too negatively impacting the ability of internationally

trained professionals to have their credentials recognized. You've asked for an exemption,

but we're denying it," that's a very slippery slope.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, I don't want to second-guess the minister's response. Can the minister provide

any confirmation that in the case of a regulatory body seeking the exemption…? Will

that exemption request be accepted, or will the superintendent or minister potentially

deny that request?

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, I'll just reiterate some comments I've made previously

about Canadian work experience.

[3:45 p.m.]

I don't think I heard about anything as much as I heard about the Canadian work experience

requirements, the catch-22 that so many international applicants are put in for that,

which is really stark when you contrast it with a lot of the rationale I got for Canadian

work experience requirements. It is in many cases, I was told, a stand-in or a proxy

to measure other competencies that are not, in fact, being measured.

It's our view — it's the view of the government — that the regulatory authorities

ought to be properly engaged in that competency and skills assessment. Obviously,

that is a very important objective in order to meet public safety and the objectives

of professional regulation. For instance, we have regulators like the association

of science technicians and technologists that have recently, in September, moved away

from Canadian work experience requirements and into competency-based assessments.

But that was something I heard across the board from regulators as well.

In answer to the member's question, it is a reverse onus, absolutely. The Canadian

work experience requirement is an unfair and unnecessary barrier. However, it is important

to acknowledge that where it is justified, because competency and skills couldn't

be measured another way, it may be the best possible yardstick. That is why we've

set up a process through sections 21 and 24 for regulators to make an application

to the superintendent for an exemption to that requirement.

We've also set up a process through sections 49 and 53 — and we can canvass those

sections when we get there — for reconsideration of the superintendent's decision,

out of an abundance of caution, approaching this prohibition.

I should say that

section 69 of the act sets out a delay in the implementation of

the Canadian work experience requirements, six months from the enforcement of the

act, which allows time for these exemptions to be adjudicated should exemption applications

be made by the regulators.

The member asked — I'm not sure if this is what he was asking — could I make a determination

on, or could I state, whether or not an application would be accepted? I can't state

whether or not an application could be accepted or would be accepted by the superintendent

because that would be to undercut the superintendent's role of adjudicating that application

for an exemption. It's a very serious and professional process that also has a layer

of oversight through a reconsideration of the decision.

I would suggest that this is a very important part of the act,

section 16, the prohibition

on Canadian work experience, and that for many, many internationally trained professionals,

it is a nightmare to go through that process to find an internationally trained professional

to take them on. Many can't find someone or end up leaving their profession and doing

other work.

To hear that laid in contrast to regulators saying, candidly, "Yeah, really we're

just doing this because we're not measuring, and we're not assessing competency" —

that's a problem. So this rightly sets that onus up, and it rightly gives a tool to

the regulators to come, based on reasons, to ask for an exemption and then to adjudicate

that exemption.

G. Kyllo: With respect to

section 16, the minister indicated that…. What I heard or I believe

I heard is that if a regulator requests or makes an application for an exemption….

[3:50 p.m.]

I don't think I heard about what that process looks like yet. I'm sure that the minister

can provide that information. But if a regulator seeks the exemption, the superintendent

will have the ability of either accepting or denying that application. Can the minister

confirm?

Hon. A. Mercier: Yes, the power would rest with the superintendent on the application and then also

pursuant to a reconsideration process, which we can canvass when we get to sections

49 to 53.

G. Kyllo: In that determination, how will the superintendent weigh public safety and the value

of that Canadian work experience with the responsibility and, I think, a legal obligation

of the regulator to ensure public safety in the context of issuance of a specific

professional credential recognition?

Hon. A. Mercier: I realize there are a lot of interconnected pieces here. Getting ahead to

section

23 of the act, 23(1)(

b) mandates government to create criteria through regulation

for the superintendent to balance in adjudicating the exemption applications.

Those criteria right now are being worked on in engagement with the regulatory authorities

themselves to ensure that the concerns and considerations that the member has raised

in terms of public safety are at the forefront of the balancing and decision-making

that the superintendent does coming to a determination on an exemption application.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

G. Kyllo: I'm skipping over lots of questions, but on this particular

section with respect to

the fee schedule, can the minister explain who will determine whether the fee or class

of fees that are imposed on an applicant that is internationally trained are for the

same or substantially the same purpose as an applicant that is not internationally

trained?

I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how that determination will be made.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The process would be that the fees would be published by the regulators in the act,

and the act sets that out. If they are different, that will be apparent on its face.

Then the superintendent and their office would be able to then engage with the regulator

and make a determination on that.

I would just request a brief recess, if we may.

The Chair: I call a recess for ten minutes, and we will return at 4:07. Actually, let's make

it eight minutes, and see you come back at 4:05.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, I call the committee back to order.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide any confirmation when the obligations for the regulatory

authorities to make information available regarding the international credential assessment

process…? At what point in time will they need to make that available on their website?

I believe, in one of the previous clauses, the minister may have alluded to summer

of 2024. But just for the record, can the minister confirm: when will the regulatory

authorities be required to make all of the appropriate necessary information available

regarding their policies, procedures and other information set out in this legislation?

When will they be required to make it available on their website?

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, he would be correct — summer 2024, with the enforcement

of the act.

G. Kyllo: And when that information is made available…. I think we have yet to fully determine

the extent of all of the detailed information that would be made available. Is the

minister able to share…? Will things like average or usual processing times be made

available? Would there be any requirement for any real-time reporting on the number

of applicants that a regulatory body may have before them for review at any given

time?

Just trying to get a bit of a sense of how much information will be required. Or is

that yet to be determined through regulation?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'm not going to go back and canvass the point about real-time reporting. I think

we've gone over that pretty substantially at this juncture.

section 19…. There is a comprehensive list, in the legislation itself, of a whole

variety of types of information that this would be applicable to, including the length

of time it takes to make a determination in the international credential assessment

process.

It also contains, in 19(2)(l), a provision that allows the minister to prescribe additional

information through regulation. I think we talked about this a few days ago, earlier

in this debate — the state of play with existing regulatory authorities now. They're

all coming from different levels of preparedness or sophistication in terms of collecting

data, and the data that the ones who collect data do collect may not be comparable

between them.

This is about benchmarking and setting a requirement that everyone can meet, all the

regulatory authorities can meet, that brings them to a certain standard. Once we're

there — that data is being collected, and we are in that habit or pattern — there

is the ability, then, for myself, or whoever the minister is, to go and prescribe

additional data as well.

There needs to be a recognition here that this is work that wasn't done for decades,

and as we've started doing with the office of the superintendent of professional governance

for a subset of regulatory authorities more broadly, but that this legislation will

bring into place. So it's about creating that baseline. There is, then, the ability

to go and be more discrete afterwards.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much to the minister. I appreciate that the information will be made

available by the summer of 2024.

What is the obligation or expectation, either of the superintendent or the minister,

with respect to any incremental changes? Policies or bylaws are updated or amended.

Fee schedules are updated or amended. Even some of the certification requirements

may be adjusted by the regulator.

I'm just wondering. Can the minister indicate what the expectation will be as far

as making sure that the information on that public-facing website is updated regularly?

I think the question will come back to an international applicant that is looking

at the website for advice or direction on how they might seek to have their international

credentials recognized in B.C. If there are any changes that are affected on the ground

within the regulatory body, is there an obligation…? What is the expectation, I guess,

or obligation on the regulator to update that? Must the website be updated on the

date that the change comes into effect? Is there a lag period? Can they just look

to updating their website annually?

I'm just trying to get an understanding of what the expectation is of either the minister

or the superintendent.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The intention of this is to increase transparency for internationally trained professionals

so that they know what the rules they have to meet are. The intention here is that

the information is up to date by the time any changes come into force with bylaws.

G. Kyllo: Just to be clear, if a regulator makes any subsequent changes to policy or bylaws….

Before those bylaws or policies can come into effect, they must be first, or at the

same time, published and updated on their website. I just want to confirm that I've

heard the minister correctly.

Hon. A. Mercier: The intention is that it's done simultaneously. When the bylaw or policy comes into

effect, it must be updated on the website.

The rationale for that is, like I said, transparency and fairness and to think of

things from an applicant's perspective. When they're putting their application together,

they ought to be able to go on to the website and get the valid and current bylaws

and policies so that they can put their application together properly. They know what

standards and rules they have to meet.

G. Kyllo: With respect to any updates that the regulator may undertake and with respect to the

bylaws or policies…. Is there an obligation or a requirement for proper document control?

The reason I ask that is…. If an applicant goes and looks at the bylaws and takes

them at face value…. How will that applicant know, if they go back to the website

a month or two or three months later, if there have been any updates? How would an

applicant be alerted to the fact of any change?

Typically, with a lot of document control, there will be a revision number associated

with that bylaw. If there's any subsequent change, there's actually a requirement

to note that. On such and such a day — let's say October 2024 — bylaw XYZ was updated

to reflect this specific change, and this is a new bylaw.

I'm just wondering if there's any expectation or obligation so that the regulators

have some form of document control. Most importantly, it's to ensure that the applicant,

when they go back to that website, would have any indication of any subsequent changes.

Further to that is…. When a regulator makes those changes…. Is there an obligation

on the regulator to notify all applicants that are in the queue of those prospective

changes, or is the obligation left with the applicant to continually monitor the website

for any potential changes that may impact their application status?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I think the member, in terms of version control of bylaws and making sure that bylaws

are up to date, raises a valid point. That's a good example of the need for best practices

and also of the role that the superintendent of international credential recognition

can play in helping craft and ensure those best practices with regulatory authorities.

This is part of why in the draft guidelines — and in the document that I provided

to the member a few days ago — the proposed standards include language about organizing

online resources. That is something that the superintendent can work with regulators

on, should it prove to be an issue or a complication.

It's important to acknowledge, when it comes to the bylaw or policy processes of the

variety of regulators, that there's a variety of legal statutes or enactments delegating

authority to them and that set out different processes, obligations and accountabilities

that they have to meet around things like their bylaws and policies. It would be inappropriate

for us, or for this act, to then go weigh into that or to weigh into matters that

are appropriately the regulatory authorities'.

For instance, there are many regulatory authorities that already, as a matter of course,

because of various obligations, inform members of the profession and applicants about

any changes to their regulatory standards. It would be inappropriate for us to weigh

too deeply into that in legislation, but it is absolutely a best practice. We will

have the superintendent to help work through and share those best practices, I think,

for the reasons mentioned by the member.

[4:25 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: With respect to the timing, if a regulatory body were to undertake changes to their

bylaws or policy, what would be the expectation level as to the time by which they'd

make that information available? Also, maybe subsequent to that, would the original

bylaws have to be maintained and still be forward-facing to the public, and then the

new bylaw? What would be the expectation as far as drawing, to an applicant's attention,

any changes?

This is where I think some of the challenges are. The minister has shared with this

House that the regulator will have the ultimate ability of changing their policies

and bylaws. Fair enough. I certainly appreciate that they may have different processes

they need to go through to do that.

Should they choose to make those changes, it's imperatively important that applicants

that have entered the process on a set date will be able to know and see, hopefully

in real time, if there are changes that might impact the status or the terms by which

their application is reviewed.

The other part of my question: will there be an obligation or expectation of the regulator?

If they're making changes that in any way, shape or form affect the application review

process of applicants that are already onboarded, will there be an obligation, an

expectation, that the regulators notify those applicants of those changes? Or will

it be left to the applicant to figure that out on their own by regularly monitoring

their websites?

Hon. A. Mercier: I understand the member's concern for transparency for international applicants, which

is part of the whole thrust of this bill, as well as of the draft guidelines. I would

caution against getting into a situation of legislating every page of a website. There's

a certain amount of flexibility here, which I think is practical. There is a mandate

through this provision to post, to their website, the bylaws and policies as they

come into force and become valid.

I would say about the application process — in the example that the member raised,

for an international applicant — that I would go back to a previous response I gave

to that same concern: regulatory authorities have an obligation to administer their

bylaws, procedures and policies in accordance with principles of natural justice and

procedural fairness. That is a very powerful protection for those who are subject

to those policies, procedures and bylaws. That's something that, I believe, regulatory

authorities take very seriously.

G. Kyllo: With respect to any amendments or changes that a regulatory authority may undertake

with respect to their bylaws and policies, is there an obligation or expectation for

that information to be provided, not just onto the website but to the superintendent,

either electronically or brought to their attention, so they're aware of those incremental

changes that may take place?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The member is asking a question about timely communications and bylaws and policies

to international applicants who are in the process. This question has been asked and

answered several times under the debate under clause 13.

G. Kyllo: This inquiry actually is not to the international applicant. This is so that the superintendent

is actually aware. The reason I'm asking the question is: will it be up to the superintendent

and his staff to conveniently and regularly monitor websites to see if there are any

changes to bylaws or policies? Or will the regulators, if they're making a change

to their bylaws or policy, be required to notify the superintendent of the change?

Now, those changes, although they're outside of the control…. At least the superintendent

would be aware of those changes, because in the absence of any direct communication

to the superintendent, I can just imagine staff might be having to review 18 different

websites on a weekly basis to look for changes.

How would they even know that an update was provided, if there's not a requirement

for the current bylaws and procedures to be dated and maybe even maintained on a website?

With the new bylaws provided, how will anybody be able to tell or determine what the

previous bylaws were or where those changes were made? I think it's absolutely a valid

question.

The main purpose of the bill is to provide consistency, so those internationally trained

professionals, when they enter the application process with a regulator, will be able

to see at the front end, with some consistency, what that application process will

look like, largely captured by the bylaws and policies. If there are any subsequent

changes to those, I think it's not only just important for the applicant to see it

but also for the superintendent to be made aware of any of those changes.

I hope the minister might be able to maybe provide his view on the necessity of the

superintendent being advised of any changes that would potentially have impacts or

implications to the recognition of internationally trained professionals.

Hon. A. Mercier: To the member's point, this question, as well, in terms of communication of changes

in bylaws to the office of the superintendent, has been asked and answered during

the debate on clause 13. I'll say, as I did then, that this goes to the question of

the relationship between the superintendent and their office and the regulatory authorities.

I can assure the member — we're talking about a set number of regulatory authorities

here — that the team within the ministry, both in the office of the superintendent

of professional governance and the credentials recognition improvement branch, have

developed, throughout this process, throughout the process of the engagement, the

legislative drafting and now the engagement on regulation and draft guidelines, a

very strong, collaborative working relationship with the regulatory authorities.

The Chair: Member, just noting that…. I guess the question is: can you provide a new line of

questioning, given that this response, that this line has been…?

G. Kyllo: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that the minister has provided a consistent

response. But I do believe it important to make the point, maybe multiple times, that

for an applicant that is seeking to have their international professional credentials

recognized and who makes that application to a regulator….

If there are any subsequent changes to the rules, the bylaws or policies by which

the regulator makes the determination, it would only seem realistic and fair that

the applicant is notified and made aware of any of those subsequent changes and that

to expect either an applicant or even the superintendent to only be made aware by

reviewing a website and then to try and determine and compare two documents to look

for changes, because the minister has not yet even acknowledged the fact that any

changes should be highlighted or notified or brought to the attention of the general

public….

[4:35 p.m.]

Document A is posted summer of 2024. An amended version of that is posted two months

later. How would anybody be aware that there were any subsequent changes? There's

no document control required. There'll be no provisional requirement for the regulator

to determine or even advise the public that the bylaw that an individual may be looking

at in October is anything different than what might have been there in July or August.

This whole piece of transparency and providing certainty to the applicants is front

and centre to the legislation that's before us.

If the minister is able to provide some comfort, maybe, to this committee that the

superintendent will, as part of best practices, be giving consideration to that, take

this point into consideration to ensure that both the public and the superintendent

have confidence in the information that's being provided and to be able to easily

identify any subsequent changes, I think I'd be satisfied with that. But the minister,

to this point, has basically just said: "It'll be what it is. It'll be posted on the

website, and let's move on."

This is a very important point, so I hope the minister might be able to provide maybe

a bit more reassurance to this committee that as part of that best practices review,

something as important and inherent as document control would form part of those best

practices.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I think that this now, at this point, has been fairly well canvassed. Not everything

that's good in the world happens as a consequence of regulation or legislation. There

are many tools in the toolbox to work with regulators to meet these standards, and

there are many regulators that, by virtue of their own policies and bylaws and their

own home statutes and other legal obligations that are on them, have a practice of

notifying or an obligation to notify the profession when there are changes that are

made.

This goes fundamentally to a question of trust in the relationship of the office of

the superintendent of international credential recognition and the regulatory authorities

to carry out their obligations in good faith and not purposely mislead the public

or applicants or seek to bury information. I mean, I just don't think that the regulators

won't act in good faith on these, particularly where the team has been engaged with

the regulatory authorities now for some period of time and is actively engaging with

them on these questions.

I furnished, for the member, the draft guidelines. These are draft guidelines and

are being engaged on and may be changed as a consequence of that engagement, but that

themselves talk about best practices for the online presence of the regulator and

those pieces. I think this is pretty clear and pretty straightforward.

I would say again that for international applicants that are going through the international

credential assessment process, the regulator has an obligation in Canadian law, which

the regulators are very aware of and is very strong, to conduct themselves in a manner

that is procedurally fair to the applicants as they go through that process. I think

those protections are there.

G. Kyllo: On

section 19(e), the clause indicates and states specifically or relates to "information

about the length of time that it usually takes for a determination to be made in an

international credential assessment process."

Can the minister identify or provide a definition for "usually"? Is that an average,

or is that a weighted average? What would be the determination of "usually," and how

would the superintendent, in any way, shape or form, determine the accuracy of the

information that the regulator might report out as the usual amount of time for the

determination of an international professional seeking to have their credentials recognized

in B.C.?

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The member raises a question that in some sense is, I think, pretty interesting. Why

use, in 19(2)(e), the term "usually" as opposed to, say, "average"? I can confirm

for the member that "average" was contemplated at one point during the drafting process.

There are good reasons not to use the term "average," and that mostly has to do with

the complexity of measuring a process that can take a variety of forms across 18 different

regulators in different periods of time.

So to use "average" would involve potentially very overly prescriptive legislation

to resolve ambiguities around that, such as what calendar window are you looking at?

If you have a process that begins in 2022 and takes 18 months, and you have different

processes beginning at different times, it becomes difficult to take a snapshot.

That's one example of many complexities. So the word "usually" is used instead to

give regulators and the superintendent the latitude to look at the usual determination

under normal circumstances as opposed to prescribing rigid conditions that aren't

practicable.

This also reflects that the regulators — as we've discussed and canvassed now quite

in depth — are at different starting points in terms of data collection. One would

expect as their data capacity matures throughout this process, and we have everyone

on the same standard for collecting data, that there will be a convergence in terms

of their ability to provide more meaningful stats.

G. Kyllo: So it sounds that it's more gut than science. You know, a weighted average, I think,

would probably achieve maybe what the minister is referring to in the definition of

"usually."

How will the superintendent or the minister have every confidence that the reported

timeline that is set out or provided by the regulator meeting the requirement of "usually"

in any way, shape or form is accurate?

Without the reporting of real data on the number of applicants that have been received

by the regulator, without clear reporting on the number of applications that have

actually satisfied all of the obligations — and the regulator is actually under review

— without determining the start date or the closing date, if there's no reporting

on all of that information, I guess we'll just have to take it at the regulator's

word that the reporting on "usually" is accurate.

I see no other ability for the superintendent or the minister, for that matter, to

determine that the information — as far as "usually" — is correct and accurate and

can be in any way measured as far as future performance improvements or degradation

thereof when it comes to applicants that are looking at applying to have their international

credentials recognized here in B.C.

I would assume, although "usually" as a number that the minister has alluded to and

set forth in this legislation…. I do believe that it would be very valuable for applicants

to understand: "What's the shortest time frame that I might be able to deal with,

if I can satisfy all of the requirements? What's the longest period of time?"

Then maybe a mean average or usual might be something that is reported out. But I

see nothing in this legislation that in any way, shape or form provides the superintendent

any ability to question or to scrutinize the authenticity of a number that would be

represented as the number of months it would be "usually" anticipated in order to

have their credentials recognized.

So it seems a bit nebulous. Maybe the minister can clarify if there's any additional

requirements for reporting of information that would provide some confidence to the

superintendent that the number reported on the website is indeed accurately reflective

of the time it takes for the issuance of internationally trained professionals — for

their credential recognition.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Well, I certainly hope that the member isn't suggesting that the regulators will deliberately

play games with data in order to obfuscate results in any type of a test. I'm not

suggesting he says that, but I just want to be clear that that is not the understanding

that we're operating under and that we had when we put the legislation together. We've

been working very closely with the regulators.

This provision, in particular (

e) in interaction with 19(2)(f), means that the timeliness

standards for determinations that we canvassed previously in clause 14 will be a yardstick

that's used to measure the determinations and the success around that. I think that

this provision does a good job of setting standards to make sure that the process

is transparent for internationally trained professionals.

It's also something that then, through the operation of the act and the iterative

interaction of the superintendent of international credential recognition with the

regulatory authorities going over the years and through the process, means that we

can strive towards increasingly better standards.

G. Kyllo: We've gone at great length, or I've certainly gone at great length, talking about

the necessity of tracking data so that we can better understand any improvements or

degradation to the timelines for the international applicants to have their credentials

recognized in British Columbia.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

I have provided previously to the table a copy of an amendment that I propose with

respect to

section 19(2)(e). I have provided a copy to the minister in advance, so

I won't read it in its entirety. The substantive impact of this regulation would require

and provide the opportunity for regulators to provide better tracking of data, which

would, I certainly believe, provide the superintendent and the minister a better ability

to track the performance of the regulatory bodies.

The proposed amendment on clause 19(2)(

e) reads:

[ CLAUSE 19, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Publication of information by regulatory authorities

(1) A regulatory authority must make information about its international credential

assessment process available to the public on a website maintained by or on behalf

of the regulatory authority.

(2) The information made available under subsection (1) must include all of the following:

(

a) bylaws or policies required under

section 13 [bylaws and policies] ;

(

b) certification requirements for each regulated profession in respect of which this

Act applies to the regulatory authority;

(

c) for each regulated profession in respect of which this Act applies to the regulatory

authority, information about the following, if applicable:

(

i) alternative means of meeting any of the certification requirements;

(ii) the criteria used to assess whether the alternative means have been met;

(

d) information about any requirement in the regulatory authority's international

credential assessment process for an internationally trained applicant to be assessed

by a third party, and, if there is such a requirement, information about the third

party;

(

e) information about the length of time that it usually takes for a determination

to be made in an international credential assessment process, including comparisons

to each of the previous five years that outline the shortest timeframe, the longest

timeline and the mean average;

(

f) if applicable, the period prescribed under

section 14 (b) [timely determinations] ;

(

g) whether an appeal or review process exists in respect of determinations in the

international credential assessment process, and if so, what the process is;

(

h) information about application fees, certification fees or similar fees that are

imposed on internationally trained applicants for certification and on applicants

for certifications who are not internationally trained applicants;

(

i) information about the process by which an internationally trained applicant may

request information from a regulatory authority about the internationally trained

applicant's application for certification;

(

j) if applicable to the regulatory authority, information in relation to decisions

about exemptions made under

section 21 [superintendent's power to grant, amend or revoke exemption] ;

(

k) if applicable to the regulatory authority, a directive of the Lieutenant Governor

in Council or a directive of the superintendent;

(

l) any information prescribed by the minister.]

I move that amendment.

On the amendment.

The Chair: Members, we have an amendment to clause 19(2)(e). It's in order, and we can circulate

copies to all members.

Minister, on the amendment.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This amendment…. I've said previously that the point here, in terms of this provision

and in the act itself, is to make sure that we're creating obligations for regulatory

authorities in order to be fair, efficient and transparent. And that at the same time,

we're balancing that out against their ability to do their job.

What we want is we want regulators to do their job assessing the applications of international

applicants and not spending all of their time on internal processes when we've got

an office of the superintendent of professional governance that is able to set standards

and is able to do that work through all of the means and abilities that we've canvassed

in the House.

I think that this amendment isn't one that I agree with, for all the reasons I've

mentioned.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

The Chair: Recognizing the Member for Shuswap.

I sure picked the perfect time to walk in here.

We're going on here. Over to you.

G. Kyllo: Hon. Chair, you've done a masterful job. Not the outcome that we were hoping for,

but….

With respect to

section 20, can the minister just confirm whether the original reports

that are annually submitted to the regulatory authorities to the superintendent under

section 20(2) of the act will be made publicly available?

Hon. A. Mercier: This is something we canvassed at length previously. There is an obligation on the

regulatory authorities to do their own reports that they make public on their front-facing

websites.

Under 20(2), the reports they're submitting to the superintendent of international

credential recognition are for the purpose of informing the annual report of the superintendent

of international credential recognition. So it is that annual report that is the outcome

of that process that will be made public.

G. Kyllo: I just want to confirm. Will those reports, both the public-facing one the regulatory

body posts on their website and the report that's submitted to the superintendent,

are those one and the same, or may those reports be different?

Hon. A. Mercier: I apologize to the member. I actually misspoke there. There's not a positive requirement

by this act on the individual regulatory authorities to do their own annual reports.

[5:05 p.m.]

However, there is the positive requirement under

section 19 to post publicly all of

the data, which is fairly comprehensive from 2(

a) to (

k) and potentially (l).

The provision for the annual report in

section 20 is the report to the superintendent

for the purpose of…. You can think of it as the raw data for the superintendent's

annual report. That is not something that has to be made public, although a huge variety

of information is on the individual regulator's website through the operation of

section

19 and transparency.

I would just add that this is a conversation we've already canvassed in the discussion

of clause 10.

G. Kyllo: If the information, the annual report, is being provided to the superintendent, can

the minister share or provide any reasons on why that same report would not be made

available to the public?

Hon. A. Mercier: The member will recall our discussion in, I believe, clause 10 on the operation of

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This is another layer of protection, in terms of personal privacy, so that nothing

is inadvertently divulged around the international credential assessment process,

given the data that the superintendent is going to be collecting — divulged inadvertently

to the public.

You could think of an example where you may incidentally divulge personal information

merely by the number of applicants going through the process.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister's response. I fail to understand how the concern of…. If

the regulators are required to provide specific information, largely as set out in

this legislation, to the superintendent for review, if that information is being divulged

to the superintendent, and this is really about transparency and ensuring that both

applicants and the general public have a good understanding of the work and the efforts

that the regulators are undertaking, I see no reason why there would be concern about

freedom of information.

Certainly, that is something that could be reviewed by the regulators or even, potentially,

by the superintendent's office to raise any concerns around any violations of FOIPPA.

But if that truly is the only reason why the information is not going to be made available

to the public, I just hope the minister might be able to clarify with a bit more certainty

on why that concern would be there and why the concern on a FOIPPA concern supersedes

the requirement and the opportunity for the general public to have a clear understanding

of what's actually happening.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, first I'd like to say that what this legislation

is going to do in its totality is make accessible a public understanding of the international

credential assessment process across British Columbia in a way that has never happened

before in this province. It's going to be a considerable sea change from business

as usual in terms of what's going on with international credential assessment. I think

that's something the member, myself and everyone in the House can agree is a positive

thing.

For internationally trained professionals or any professionals that I've talked to,

what they do for a living and what they've trained to do is who they are. It cuts

immediately to the heart of who most folks are as human beings. It's incredibly personal.

The superintendent…. The regulatory authorities have a profound power over those individuals,

over all regulated professionals. The superintendent is also imbued with a lot of

authority and power here, and it's important that we use that in a judicious way so

as to protect the personal privacy and integrity of individuals.

Collecting this data and the process to collect the data for the annual report, like

I said, is going to be transformational in a lot of senses, and for all the reasons

the member has raised previously about why we need to collect data. But making sure

that we take a judicious eye to that is incredibly important and runs throughout the

legislation, from the cautions in clause 10 about privacy straight through to the

confidentiality provisions around the superintendent in clause 54.

[5:15 p.m.]

The member asked for an example. I'll illustrate a potential example. It is feasible

or possible that you have a regulator that has a few dozen international applicants

a year. We haven't yet prescribed what the data points are going to be, exactly, that

we're asking them to collect, because we are engaging on that with the regulators

right now. So it would be premature to jump the gun on that.

But, for instance, it is conceivable that we ask about things like age, like gender,

like country of origin. If you have a regulator that has a few dozen international

applicants, and you could very easily tell, through the data…. If you have only one

female applicant of African origin and that individual has been declined, it's very

conceivable that you functionally make that public through the disclosure.

Having that extra layer of protection to have the superintendent there to collate

and collect that is incredibly important. It is something that I think is right and

is, I think, frankly, something that we're going to benefit from as a society.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd like to move an amendment that I've circulated with the Clerk.

I would say that I'm indebted to the member for raising this issue with me. The amendment

as circulated is an amendment to clause 21, which deletes the reference in 21(

b) to

16(2)(b) — as has been correctly pointed out, there is no 16(2)(b), but there is a

16(b) — and substitutes that with 16(b).

[ CLAUSE 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text

as shown:

Superintendent's power to grant, amend or revoke exemption

(1) The superintendent may, on application, grant an exemption to a regulatory authority

in respect of the following prohibited requirements:

(

a) a Canadian work experience requirement;

(

b) a requirement prescribed under

section 16 (2) (b) 16 (b) [prohibited requirements respecting Canadian work experience and prescribed matters] .

(2) The superintendent may, on application or on the superintendent's own initiative,

amend or revoke an exemption if the superintendent is satisfied that one or more of

the following applies:

(

a) new information has become available that was not available at the time the exemption

was granted;

(

b) there is a change in circumstances that affects whether an exemption should be

continued.]

On the amendment.

G. Kyllo: I just wanted to thank my research officer Parnian Taheri, who actually brought this

to my attention. I brought it forward as a table amendment earlier today to the attention

of the Clerk, who provided, conveniently, a copy to the minister. I certainly appreciate

the opportunity and the work that my research officer has done to alert me to this

error within this piece of legislation.

The Chair: Members, I'll just restate that the amendment is to clause 21(1)(b).

Amendment approved.

On clause 21 as amended.

G. Kyllo: In a previous clause, we did actually speak to the opportunity for a regulatory body

to actually seek an exemption with a specific reference to, I believe, clause 16.

In any event, can the minister set out what that application process specifically

will be for the regulatory body to seek that exemption from clause 16?

Then subsequent to that, should it be the determination of the superintendent not

to grant that exemption if there is an opportunity for an appeal process for the regulator?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: For the member, the process…. I can talk a bit about the intention behind the process,

because part of it will deal with prescribed regulation on criteria that we've had

a brief discussion on in the discussion on clause 16, prospectively.

The exemption process is governed by clause 21 through to clause 24. What clause 22

does is stipulate the form that the application for the exemption has to be in, which

is in writing and including required information, etc.

So 23(1)(

b) sets out an obligation for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe

criteria for the superintendent — because it will be the superintendent that makes

the determination on an exemption application — to make that adjudication. As I've

mentioned, this is work that is being engaged on currently with the regulators, grounded

in the principles of balancing the principles of professional regulation, which, as

the member rightly pointed out and has pointed out several times in this debate, include

things like the safety of the public. But also looking towards….

We're engaging on the criteria, and there will be set criteria that come out of that

engagement and regulation. In balancing those regulatory objectives, there's also

a practical underpinning to it. I think a good way to think of it, for the member,

is really as a functional question of whether or not the competency or skills that

the Canadian work experience requirement is substituting or acting as a signal for

can be measured a different way. So balancing those objectives and balancing the practicality

of a different method of measuring it.

There will be, under

section 69, which is a transitional provision, six months after

the act comes into enforcement, that the prohibition on Canadian work experience comes

into enforcement, which gives time for the regulatory authorities that wish to seek

an exemption to make their exemption applications and for it to be adjudicated. Subsequent

to that, under sections 49 to 53, there is a reconsideration process for a decision

of the superintendent as well.

[5:25 p.m.]

Clause 21 as amended approved.

Clauses 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On clause 25.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister elaborate on the procedure regarding an audit under

section 25 of

this act, with a specific reference to what would prompt the superintendent to conduct

an audit under

section 25?

Hon. A. Mercier: Under clause 25, the superintendent has the authority to conduct an audit. It really

spells out in the act about general procedural matters, systemic procedural matters,

which really may be something that flow from the data or from the reporting over time

as well as the guidelines.

Under section…. This doesn't operate like the Canadian work experience exemption.

This doesn't operate in isolation. It kind of triggers a whole passage of things through

the subsequent clauses.

[5:30 p.m.]

The outcome of one of those audits may very well be a determination by the superintendent

to issue new specific guidelines as a consequence of that.

If the superintendent still isn't satisfied that those guidelines are being considered,

there is, then, the ability to prescribe that as a matter for inspection under

section

27, which brings in some more serious escalation powers, although I would say that

to go down that route would require a pretty significant bad actor. In fairness to

the regulatory authorities, I have a hard time seeing it get that far down the road.

I think the question the member was asking, in practical terms, is: when the rubber

meets the road, on the ground, what will trigger an audit? Under what circumstances

would the superintendent, he or she, do an audit of a regulatory authority?

There are really two baskets you could put that under: proactive audits or responsive

ones. It may be that the superintendent makes a determination that they're proactively

going to audit all regulators, across the board, under their authority on a particular

matter to get an environmental scan of where the regulators stand, who's doing well,

who's not, etc., and who needs extra help. Or they could be responsive. They could

be targeted audits that come out of very specific complaints or of signals we get

through the data through the annual reports.

G. Kyllo: The minister referenced, in his response, proactive audits. I think we can all appreciate

that any organization undertaking an audit…. It takes considerable time and energies.

It would surprise me that the minister would indicate that the superintendent may

want to undertake proactive audits.

If the opportunity for the proper reporting of information is there…. Really, the

only metric, for the most part, that's being reported out is the usual time frame.

I can only imagine that if an organization, in year 1, says that the usual time frame

is 12 months…. In a subsequent year, maybe it's now…. The usual time frame is 14 months.

You might be able to make the determination that there has been, maybe, some deterioration

in the time frame. If that's not taking into consideration the number of applicants

and staff resources and all the rest, the wrong conclusion could be quite easily made.

I think regulators would be very interested in having a better understanding of under

what conditions they may be subject to an audit. It would have a considerable administrative

expense for their organization.

I just wonder if the minister might be able to provide a bit more clarity on what

might prompt the superintendent to undertake a proactive audit.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, this is a pretty well-established best practice

among fair registration acts across the country. The relevant comparable bodies in

provinces like Ontario or Manitoba or Nova Scotia regularly conduct performance audits

proactively on regulators under their jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

The superintendent of professional governance has conducted a number of performance

audits, which are publicly available on the OSPG's website, of regulators under their

jurisdiction and has the experience of doing those audits in a collaborative, considerate

way. It's not unlike, in a sense, an audit from the Auditor General. I mean, there

are always efficiencies that could be found. There's always something that could be

learned.

There is a huge benefit in terms of the relationship and having the superintendent,

as well, understand how the regulators work, having that insight, and how they work

on a given matter that may be under the consideration of an audit.

I should say, for the regulators' understanding, that any audits would be narrow in

scope. They wouldn't come in and be broad organizational audits. I mean, it would

be limited and targeted towards whichever matter, under the act, the superintendent

is looking for an environmental scan of.

Now, that being said, there's also, like I said…. In fairness to the member…. The

member's question was about proactive audits. I think I've covered and canvassed that.

There also are reactive or targeted audits, which I think everyone pretty clearly

understands, right? If you see smoke, you need to go check and see if there's fire.

I think t