Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

1, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 31; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On clause 122 (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster

Management Act, to order.

We are on clause 122.

L. Doerkson: I look forward to some questions this afternoon, for certain.

We'll start with, I guess, basically, the division of this section. What I want to

start by understanding is that this….. The next couple of clauses will refer to damage,

but I just want to get a clear understanding of what this damage could be.

This is damage when officials or people operating on behalf of the province or others

actually create damage. Am I right about that?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, the member is correct. The first reference to damage is in

section 123, and it

refers to physical damage that is caused by the exercise of powers.

L. Doerkson: Certainly, we can move to 123 if the minister would like, but I do just have some

general questions about this kind of damage. I'll take the lead from the minister

on that.

I do have questions about that damage occurring and what might be included in that.

I can appreciate that we've reviewed a number of different clauses and different circumstances

where damage might occur — in clauses 73 through, I don't know, roughly 76 or 77 —

but one of the questions that I have about this is: could this include compensation

that may compensate for damage with respect to a controlled burn?

Hon. B. Ma: Happy to respond to the question. I do recommend we move to 123 so that we can speak

more directly to the clauses on that question.

Clause 122 approved.

On clause 123.

L. Doerkson: I think the minister understands the question that I'm asking under this clause. I'll

just maybe expand on that.

Obviously, there's a lot of concern around fire on the landscape, but it's not just

fire. Potentially we could be talking about diversion of water and other different

things that ministries or people operating on behalf of the province may create.

[2:45 p.m.]

We did speak, certainly, about the consequences for individuals on the landscape causing

some of those problems. Certainly we understand that they might be responsible.

I want to get a better understanding specifically with respect to controlled burns

that are used in the case of wildfire on behalf of B.C. Wildfire.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you to the member for the question. The answer is no, but I will elaborate on

it and then provide guidance for where the member can get a better response to his

specific question.

Under

section 123, "Persons entitled to compensation," it occurs when a power is exercised

under the EDMA, specifically within

section 76 or 107 in accordance with the subsections

here — so 76(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) or (f), or

section 107(1)(

b) or

section 118(1)(

b) and so forth. So it would be powers used that are authorized by EDMA during a declared

state of emergency or a declared period of response.

Controlled burns are enabled through the Wildfire Act, so it's a different piece of

legislation. I can quote it. I can read the relevant

section for the member for his

information, which is the Wildfire Act,

section 9: "Government may carry out fire

control."

[2:50 p.m.]

I believe…. If I'm reading this correctly, subsection (4) would be that "If the government

enters on private land to carry out fire control on other land, the government must

compensate the owner of private land and any tenant of the private land for damage

caused to the private land by the government in carrying out the fire control." I

don't have the actual Wildfire Act in front of me, but I believe that's the reference

in there.

I'll also note that Bill 41 does include an amendment to the Wildfire Act around controlled

burns, so I'll flag that for the member so that he can take his question there as

well.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I understand exactly what the minister is saying with respect to other jurisdictions.

I suppose that when I saw that the minister may, by order, "do one or more of the

following," and then multiple different things that might occur…. I would have suggested

that the terms here may have been vague enough that it could have included wildfire.

With respect to the damage done, how will you effectively arrive at a suitable package

for compensation when we actually do cause damage on the landscape?

Hon. B. Ma: This is actually laid out in

section 125, which describes how compensation amounts

will be determined to ensure that compensation amounts are fair and reasonable in

relation to the damage or loss while also limiting a person from claiming compensation

from more than one source for the same damage or loss.

We can go through the clauses under 125, as well, if more detail is required there.

L. Doerkson: I want to get a bit of a sense before we move on. I can appreciate that wildfire may

not fall under the EDMA, which I guess is a different subject. I'll leave that one

alone for now.

I do want to understand clearly, before we move on from this section…. I do know that

the clauses that might be referred to —

section 76, etc. — are somewhat vague. So

can I get some very clear examples?

I can appreciate, I think, that when we have maybe gained entry into someone's home,

we may break the door down or something to get into it, for a number of different

reasons. Maybe it's a matter of searching or whatever. But I would like to get some

clear examples of what this clause may be contemplating as far as damage is concerned.

I do know that some of these earlier clauses did refer to access to land, moving equipment,

moving personal property. In every one of those cases, I'm supposing that there could

be damage, but I do want to get a very clear understanding of what damage might be

contemplated by the minister.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: One piece of clarification I think worth noting is in response to where the member

suggested breaking down doors to do searches. Just to be clear, the EDMA does not

provide the authority to allow warrantless entry for investigative purposes. So just

to be clear on that.

I mean, certainly there are other reasons to enter on an emergency basis but not to

bypass warrants for investigative purposes.

A few examples, I think, that would be relevant here under

section 123 are if, through

the use of the emergency powers, fences had to be taken down or authorization of removal

of personal property, like the removal of trees, crops or landscapes, to provide access

to an area or to support some kind of staging for emergency response, the creation

of an evacuee camp or so forth.

L. Doerkson: That creates two questions. I guess the first question that I want to understand is:

which employees? I would have suspected that a lot of the work that the minister just

referred to would have been done, potentially, by B.C. Wildfire.

I mean, the removal of trees and those types of things, is this ministry now equipped

in a way to be doing that kind of work? If so…. Well, I'll just leave it at that.

But I did want clarification because in 76(c), it actually says that there is authorization

for entry without warrant into any structure or onto any land. The minister just suggested

that that's not part of this bill, but, unless I'm confused, this suggests that anyone

from this ministry could authorize that power or use that power.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Happy to provide clarification on both items. Under sub-subsection 76(1)(c), it says

the minister may, by order, "authorize the entry without warrant into any structure

or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency measures."

So it is allowed for the purpose of taking emergency measures, but it is not a power

that can be used to bypass warrants for investigations of crimes or investigative

purposes like crimes. It depends on the purpose of entry.

Then to the member's earlier question about which employees, it is less about who

does the work and more about whose authorization and under what act that authorization

is being provided.

For instance, if the work was being done by B.C. Wildfire Service members…. However,

they were authorized to do so under the EDMA by order of the minister, then it would

fall under section…. Then

section 123 would apply. If they were acting under a different

authorization provided under a different act, then

section 123 would likely not apply.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the clarity on both of those. I wasn't suggesting for investigative

purposes. I was expecting that, potentially, it could be for a search or in an evacuation

situation, Minister.

So going back to the damage being created and then falling under this ministry, I

can appreciate that there may be a difference with respect to orders. Will that sort

of be the same for any other parts of government that may be involved in different

sorts of things — power outages and wind damage and those types of things, when perhaps

companies like Hydro and things are involved? How will that work as far as damage

that may occur in response to some of those emergencies?

Hon. B. Ma: Using the member's example of B.C. Hydro, if the minister ordered the authorization

for B.C. Hydro to enter a property or do a thing that is enabled under

section 76

of the EDMA or one of the sections that is listed here under

section 123 as being

relevant to this section, then yes, and then there was damage as a result of that

use of the power, then

section 123 would apply.

[3:05 p.m.]

However, if B.C. Hydro entered into property or took actions that did not flow from

the use of an order, then

section 123 would not apply. B.C. Hydro has the ability

to function in the normal course of business in most cases. If damage was occurring

outside of the context of the minister providing an order during a provincial state

of emergency or during a period of recovery, under

section 76, or that power was used

under

section 107 or 118, then…. If they were doing that under….

Sorry, I made it too confusing. Basically, it flows from the use of powers that are

listed here in 123, whether 123….

L. Doerkson: I want to get a better understanding of what the minister was referring to earlier

about that direction of power. I want to understand, specifically under this clause,

what might encourage the minister to direct an organization like B.C. Wildfire, for

instance, to remove trees and that type of thing.

I'm a little bit hung up there. We've talked in the last couple of days about hierarchy

and about who would be sort of calling the shots, if you will, on the landscape. I

definitely want to understand what might encourage the minister to get involved at

that level.

Hon. B. Ma: In the course of an emergency response and, in the future, under a recovery period,

I as minister regularly take advice from emergency management professionals, including

experts from the B.C. Wildfire Service.

If there comes a circumstance where an organization like the B.C. Wildfire Service

has identified an action that they must take but cannot take without the exercise

of powers under the Emergency Program Act or, in the future, under the EDMA, then

that recommendation would come to me as minister. It would be up to me, as minister,

as to whether or not I would approve the exercise of those powers by issuing an order.

The reason why a minister would become involved in those scenarios that we have talked

about is if there's no other legal authority to allow that kind of work to happen

without the exercise of emergency powers granted to the minister under the EDMA.

L. Doerkson: I just want to make sure that is a similar response to other ministries that might

be involved in different situations, where the minister might be involved as far as

other emergencies where they may fall under a different ministry — water, land or

transmissible disease — so all of the components that we've talked about.

Is that safe to say that that is the same throughout every ministry that might be

involved?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Ordinarily, including during emergency situations, any ministry that is taking action

usually has a lot of powers under statutes that they are responsible for. So lots

of ministers and ministries already have a wide variety of tools that they can call

upon in a wide variety of situations.

This comes into consideration when a decision is being made as to whether a provincial

state of emergency is going to be declared, because the declaration of a provincial

state of emergency is what activates the ability of the minister to use emergency

powers under the EDMA, under those sections that we refer to — the powers that are

available under a provincial state of emergency. That minister, in this case, would

be the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

So we have other government ministries that have their own authorities under the statutes,

that they are responsible for. If an action is identified that needs to be taken during

an emergency situation that they are unable to take because they do not have the legislative

framework to allow it, it could become a situation where a provincial state of emergency

is declared in order to activate the extraordinary powers that are available under

the EDMA.

The minister that would be responsible for deciding whether or not that extraordinary

power was going to be authorized would be the Minister of Emergency Management and

Climate Readiness, under which the EDMA sits. So that's kind of the flow of decision-making,

I suppose.

It's worth noting that an order under the EDMA is…. It says in the EDMA that you only

exercise those orders if it is needed. So if that power exists in a different statute

under a different ministry already, then it's difficult to argue that the emergency

order is needed. It's really meant to be in extraordinary cases where other existing

statutes are insufficient to allow government to respond to the crisis at hand.

L. Doerkson: With respect to those responses…. I can appreciate that there may be some sort of

cross-pollination, Minister, between, obviously, the ministries that are working together.

I guess I'm just trying to get a better sense….

[3:15 p.m.]

Maybe hierarchy is not the right word. I mean, obviously this ministry would not be

actually out on the landscape falling trees or potentially diverting water or digging

trenches or those types of things. Unless I'm misunderstanding completely, the minister

would then simply, in that state of emergency, be able to direct different ministries

to a specific response.

So in other words, you may be able to tell Wildfire to go do this, to set up a camp,

to do whatever. You might be able to tell whichever ministry is looking after a water

issue — for instance, where we may see flooding or something — that this minister

can step into the lead position and direct those other ministries. Am I misunderstanding

that?

Hon. B. Ma: We are starting to drift quite far from

section 123. I would like to provide a response

to the member, because I know that his questions are important. But if we're able

to bring it back to

section 123 following this response, I think that that would be

good for us and the debate.

If you take a look at

section 76 powers, it does not….

Section 76 powers do not include

powers to direct other ministries to take actions. Rather, it authorizes certain actions

to be taken.

For instance, if the B.C. Wildfire Service were to say: "We really need to gain access…."

Or any ministry. Let's say a ministry needed to respond to an emergency and required

access to the property in order to exercise that emergency response action and they

did not have in their own statutes the ability to do so, then they would come to EMCR

and say: "Hey, we're in a bind. We really need to take this action, and this is why."

That may be a reason to enable the use of emergency powers under a declaration of

a state of emergency or otherwise. So then we might "authorize the entry without warrant

into any structure or onto any land by any person for the purpose of taking emergency

measures." I'm reading from

section 76(1)(c).

In that case, in that example, it is not an order that directs another ministry to

do something. Rather, it is an order that authorizes the entry onto that land for

members of that ministry to take the action that they need to take.

[3:20 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Thank you, I suppose, for your patience, Minister. I don't feel as though I'm drifting.

I mean, we're talking about actions that may end with damage caused to personal property

or those types of situations that may occur because this ministry has given that authorization.

That's really all I'm trying to understand better. I'm trying to get a better understanding

of what would encourage this minister to do that. I can appreciate that, and I think

I'm clear on that now.

I think that if I'm following this correctly, the minister is suggesting that it may

authorize B.C. Wildfire to enter my personal property to do things that might help

in defending against fire. Now, I can appreciate that that is sort of what the minister

is suggesting. And I think we're clear on the fact that the ministry itself does not

actually have employees that would do that work, so it would happen through a different

ministry –– Forestry in the case of wildfire.

I guess what I'm trying to understand…. Well, we can move past how that happens, I

guess. Would the claimant, then, be coming to this ministry for the funding or for

that claim, or would it be going to B.C. Wildfire? In the case of fire, we started

talking with a controlled burn. Typically, when B.C. Wildfire uses a controlled burn

on public lands, they are not liable, it's my understanding, on private property.

But this sort of changes everything, once you've given a reason to enter someone's

private property and then perform certain events.

I just want to be clear on where people will be claiming. I know we'll get into that

a little bit more here in the next couple of clauses, but I want to get a sense of

where people will claim –– from this ministry or from Forestry — in that case?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Because the power exercised in order for a person to be entitled to compensation under

section 123 is tied to the EDMA, I would say that the claim would come to the ministry.

The legislation itself just says "government," so provincial government owes compensation.

How it is actually carried out procedurally or operationally isn't particularly set

out in the EDMA, but I think it would be reasonable to say that those claims would

come to EMCR.

That said, I would also flag that controlled burns in the B.C. Wildfire Service might

not be the best example to try to parse this out because the B.C. Wildfire Act is

so powerful in and of itself. The Wildfire Act provides the B.C. Wildfire Service

significant powers, which is another reason why a provincial declaration of a state

of emergency this summer did not occur until quite late in the season. It's because

the Wildfire Act provides the B.C. Wildfire Service with a number of tools for a lot

of the things that the member is exploring right now.

Maybe another example that is more useful to trying to parse out how the act applies….

Let's say that during any kind of emergency response, an evacuee camp needed to be

set up in quick order. The removal of structures, like a fence on private property,

in order to bring a large ATCO trailer in to create an evacuee camp to set up in support

of evacuations from any kind of emergency — that would be an example of the use of

the powers under the EDMA.

Clause 123 approved.

On clause 124.

L. Doerkson: I just want to understand how we arrive at a "prescribed amount" and what that would

refer to in 124.

Hon. B. Ma: The prescribed amount under this

section would come out in regulation. That work hasn't

been done yet.

I can share that what would be considered is basically the minimum claim amount, to

reduce administrative demands for exceedingly small claims. It's a consideration of

at what point we are spending more money administering a claim than actually compensating

somebody for that damage.

[3:30 p.m.]

It allows for government, through regulation, to avoid situations where the cost that

government would incur in processing the claim is greater than the amount actually

being claimed.

L. Doerkson: I'm wondering what…. I can appreciate that this may come as regulation. Has anything

been contemplated as far as disallowing claims?

Hon. B. Ma:

Section 125, which is the next section, under sub (2), does lay out some scenarios

where the amount of compensation which a person is entitled to under this

section

"…does not include an amount equal to any amount of compensation for the loss or damage

that is paid or payable, to any person, in prescribed circumstances or under any of

the following." So there are some scenarios contemplated under subsection 125(2),

largely….

If I could have a moment just to make sure that I'm giving an accurate answer. I'm

just going to double-check this.

Effectively, the EDMA states that if you have already been paid compensation under

one of these other scenarios, then you are not entitled to that amount of compensation

under the act. It avoids double-dipping, in terms of getting compensation.

L. Doerkson: It wasn't the double-dipping that I was so much worried about. Under 125, which you

referred to, I didn't see a list there necessarily. It just said "in prescribed circumstances."

I can appreciate the double-dipping comment. Of course we don't want that. But I just

wondered in what circumstances a person may not qualify or be compensated. I'm not

talking about the obvious things.

I can appreciate that a claim may be too small to actually bother with at a provincial

level. I appreciate that. But, really, what I was looking for was a better understanding

of what might disqualify a person from making a claim.

[3:35 p.m.]

Specifically, I guess, Minister, what I was trying to prompt was that question around

wildfire again. I can appreciate that we could debate that for a while.

There's been a long discussion about fire happening or controlled burns and things

like that being set on Crown land with no liability, burning to someone's property,

and then a difference of opinion when it's actually set on private land. So I guess

that might be one of the cases where a resident may not be compensated in the case

of a controlled burn being lit just outside of a fence line as compared to being inside

the fence line.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or off-topic here. It's just a very serious concern.

I mean, people in the landscape are exposed to so much. It's not just the actions

of the province or the government, but it's certainly a carelessly thrown cigarette

butt or a campfire, and all of a sudden, you see one of our residents losing everything,

right?

There are opportunities, of course, or…. Sorry. Some of those residents are not in

a position to, oftentimes, even get insurance. So there is massive exposure, and surely

the minister would appreciate the concern about that.

I'll look forward to the regulation on that. Thanks, Minister.

Clauses 124 and 125 approved.

On clause 126.

L. Doerkson: I just wanted to get a better sense of why 60 days was picked.

Going back to the wildfire situation, many people are not even clear on their losses.

I'm sorry. I apologize to the minister for focusing on wildfire, but that's sort of

the thing that I'm, I guess, most familiar with, although I've got a goodly amount

of flooding that I've been involved with too.

Oftentimes, ranchers, people that have herds on the landscape, are not even aware

of their losses for a number of weeks after the fact. I can appreciate that there

must be a deadline at some point. I'm just wondering why 60 days was picked.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I want to make clear that this

section 126 specifically speaks to claiming compensation

under this division, which is related to damage caused by the exercise of emergency

powers. It is not in relation to broader damage that might be caused in the course

of an emergency, any type of emergency, that is not directly related to actions of

either the provincial government or local authority or other participating authority.

This is specifically on claiming compensation in relation to damage caused through

the exercise of an emergency power.

It won't be much of a secret, because those kinds of exercises of emergency powers

have to be done by order and published publicly.

The 60 days — the countdown begins at the end of a state of emergency or at the end

of a recovery period. It may actually end up being quite a lot longer than 60 days

from the date of the action. So it's not 60 days from the date of the action; it is

60 days following the end of a state of emergency or end of a recovery period.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I was clear on the damage. It was actually the days that I was interested in.

I wasn't debating one way or the other how the damage occurred.

Just for clarity, the 60 days could start at the end of…. Would that be the end of

a provincial state of emergency or the actual event itself?

Hon. B. Ma: For greater confidence on the term "specified date," it is defined in

section 122.

The specified date would be the date on which a declaration of a state of provincial

emergency or a declaration of a state of local emergency is cancelled or expires,

or the declaration of a provincial recovery period or a declaration of a local recovery

period — when that period is cancelled or expires.

[3:45 p.m.]

Whether it is a provincial state of emergency or local state of emergency that applies

in this case depends on who took the action that caused the damage. If it was a provincial

order, then the specified date that would be relevant would be the end of a provincial

state of emergency or the end of a provincial recovery period. And if the action was

taken by a local authority using local powers causing the damage, then it would be

the local state of emergency, local recovery period and date that would apply.

Clause 126 approved.

On clause 127.

L. Doerkson: I do have one quick question on 127. That is the 90 days, of course, for the ministry

to solve a claim.

I can appreciate that there are 60 days, but in this case, we're talking about 90

days. I know, particularly with respect to at least one file in my community, it's

been very challenging to get those clear answers or a solution — even, frankly, as

long as a year.

So I'm just wondering. Is the minister confident that that 90-day period is long enough

for this clause?

Hon. B. Ma: For the record — once more, just to be clear —

section 127 is related to a claim for

compensation as a result of damage caused by an action of government through the use

of emergency powers rather than the general disaster financial assistance compensation

claims.

I would say that I think it's appropriate and good to hold government accountable

to a timeline, and 90 days is, I think, a reasonable amount of time to expect government

to respond with.

Clauses 127 to 149 inclusive approved.

On clause 150.

L. Doerkson: This

section is obviously to do with offences. I hope that we can agree that I could

just ask questions under 150. I mean, we can certainly move through to 153, but….

We've talked about this a little bit in vague terms earlier. Here I want to just get

a little bit more clarity with respect to offences that might be listed.

Now, I can appreciate that we have listed a number of them by way of sections 70 through

73, 89, 107. But for better clarity, I wondered if the minister could outline some

of the offences, with specific information around both regional orders and provincial

orders, and how these next sections, specifically 153, may play a role in having people

that could be charged.

[3:50 p.m.]

What I mean by that is, of course, evacuation orders. It's what I'd like to get to

right away. Will those fall under this category, with clarity? I guess I'll leave

it at that for right now.

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate that the critic will likely have follow-up questions in this vein, so

I want to just provide a clear answer to his last question. The answer is yes.

Evacuation orders are powers that are granted under

section 77 for the province, 107

for local authorities. They are included under subsection 150(2)(b). Violations of

evacuation orders are considered offences under

section 150.

Clauses 150 to 152 inclusive approved.

On clause 153.

L. Doerkson: Minister, I want to get a better sense of…. We've talked a little bit about the size

of the fines that were handed out to gyms and different businesses during, obviously,

a period of transmissible disease, which is now recognized under this act, of course,

as we know.

Those fines for disobeying orders — we talked a little bit about this yesterday —

were $2,500. The suggestion that we're seeing in this clause now, fines of $100,000

and potentially one year in jail, are extremely significant. I can appreciate that

the minister has said on a few occasions that this is not where we want to go right

off the top. I guess I just want to get a better sense of how the ministry has decided

that somebody that may have decided to stay and defend a home could find themselves

in this serious situation.

I think, also, this clause actually reflects a $1 million fine to corporations. We'll

get to the corporation portion in a bit. But I do know that there are times that….

[3:55 p.m.]

For instance, I could suggest that even just recently, within the last two or three

weeks in the West Chilcotin, a rancher was not even aware…. Because of connectivity

issues and different things, he wasn't even aware that he was in an evacuation-ordered

position. Now, I guess he was probably pretty aware once B.C. Wildfire showed up,

but he was actually assisting them with respect to using his own irrigation system

and different things. He was actually actioning the fire with them.

I'm very concerned that this very punitive fine could have an unintended consequence

of really creating a lot of damage to people that find themselves stuck in these positions.

I guess I'd like to understand better why it's so large. And would there be any thought

given or contemplation given to the notion that people actually may not be even aware

because of lack of connectivity, particularly in very rural areas of our province?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: This legislation, in

section 153, sets out maximum penalties that could be issued

for offences under the EDMA, not minimums or even what might be considered usual.

The Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation, which I referenced yesterday,

allows government to set out different ticket amounts for various contraventions.

[4:05 p.m.]

Currently, under the Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation, the default

ticket for a contravention of a provision under the Emergency Program Act, the current

act, is $2,300. So that's a $2,000 fine plus a $300 victim surcharge.

However, there have been situations, and there regularly are other situations, where

cabinet can see fit to set different ticket amounts for different contraventions.

For instance, during the atmospheric river event, when there were travel restrictions,

the regulation was set so that tickets for people who violated the travel restriction

were actually set at $230. It very much depends on the severity of the contravention.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

I will also add…. I mean, the maximum penalties outlined here are consistent with

many other acts that have set maximum penalties to similar scales. Really, the reason

why the maximum penalties are set out the way that they are is to ensure that the

act is able to achieve its intended objectives. Certainly, evacuation orders are very

important, and we want people to follow them, but they are not the only offences that

can be contemplated by this act and that government could potentially authorize tickets

and penalties for.

Now, to the member's specific question around evacuations, I'd like to provide, maybe,

an operational perspective. It's not necessarily written down in the EDMA, but it's

probably helpful to speak about it in real-world terms.

It is possible for police or other enforcement officers such as police to issue tickets

to somebody who is in violation or refuses to follow an evacuation order. It would

be up to the enforcement officer to determine whether or not they believed it was

in the public interest to issue a ticket or to recommend a charge.

In the example that the member gave, where a person did not even know that they were

under an evacuation order, I would be…. I can't speak on behalf of all enforcement

officers, but I suspect that enforcement officers would not…. I can't speak on their

behalf, but they would have to decide whether or not it was in the public interest

to issue a ticket or to recommend a charge in that case.

I can share that I am not aware of any tickets or charges that have been recommended

against somebody who has refused an evacuation order. This is not to try to encourage

anybody to reject an evacuation order — we do really believe that it is imperative

that evacuation orders are respected and followed — but simply that I'm not aware

of any tickets or charges being used against that kind of violation.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the answer, Minister. I guess the concern that I have is that we're

creating legislation that'll be decided on the landscape. We've talked yesterday about

the potential for…. Even folks that are ignoring do-not-water orders and those types

of things could be exposed to this compliance mechanism. That's my concern. We're

going to leave that to a compliance officer to decide that on the landscape. That,

to me, brings up all kinds of issues that we won't discuss today.

I guess my question really was around: where did this number come from? Why did the

minister see fit to put such a punitive fine in place if there's no intention, really,

to use it? I mean, I can appreciate that we haven't maybe seen this or there haven't

been instances that the minister has recollected that we've seen fines of this size,

but clearly it's there for a reason.

I'd like to know what the reason is for such a large fine.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Again, the act sets out maximum penalties that could be issued for offences under

the EDMA. It does not set out minimums or what tickets could look like, created through

regulation under the Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation. It sets

out the maximum.

Although the member's example so far has been specific to evacuation orders, those

are not the only offences that can occur in the context of the EDMA. There are other

much more significant offences that can be contemplated here.

Setting out a maximum means that…. The maximum fine that's been set out under 153

is the maximum that any offence related to the EDMA could be provided for.

Once more, the scale is actually quite consistent with many other acts as well.

L. Doerkson: I don't know that we'll debate that much further. I am aware, through conversations

that we've had for the last couple of days, of the implications of where this compliance

could be used. I think we have talked about ignoring do-not-water orders, evacuation

orders and a number of other situations.

It is one of my largest concerns about the bill, although I do have a number of others.

But for today, I will conclude my questions, and we'll leave it at that point. Thank

you very much.

J. Sturdy: Just for some clarity for my constituents. Farmers in the Pemberton Valley, who have

been subject to evacuation orders many times over the decades due to flooding, as

per EDMA are potentially subject to, if they don't obey the evacuation order, a fine

of $100,000 or a year in jail, potentially. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: As I stated in my previous response,

section 153 outlines the maximum penalties that

could be issued for contravention or an offence under the EDMA.

Currently, the default violation ticket amount is $2,300. That's set out in the Violation

Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation. That applies to the current Emergency

Program Act, and it would carry forward into the Emergency and Disaster Management

Act unless changed.

L. Doerkson: I think that is really a clear indication of the frustration that some people are

feeling with this specific clause 153. While I can appreciate that we've talked about

$2,300 fines, the clear answer is that those individuals that the member from Sea

to Sky just mentioned would be exposed to a potential fine of $100,000 or a year in

jail.

I think that that is…. I won't ask a question on it because I think I'm very clear,

unless the minister nods at me that I'm not.

[4:15 p.m.]

I can appreciate that we've talked about $2,300 fines and others, but the fact is

that there is a mechanism here to fine very large for contraventions of this act,

which is certainly concerning.

I'm going to leave it there. I do just want to note that I am sure the minister is

well aware of my concerns. We've spent a lot of days together, and we've certainly

talked about the fact that there is still a public commenting period, that there is

still a task force out there collecting information.

All of those things, of course, are concerning to me, because potentially, we're about

to vote on this bill. It's my understanding that a lot of that information will not

be collected, obviously, until the end of the year. We'll see, potentially, a what-we-heard

document in the spring of 2024, and we may see regulation to the end of next year,

which really means that we will go through another entire year without the benefit

of that information being in this document.

I can appreciate that we will create regulation along the way, but certainly, there

are definitely concerns that I have. The last clause that we've spoken about today,

at 153, definitely concerns me and others in a very big way.

I do want to thank the minister for her patience as we have navigated through, I think,

now eight days or so of committee stage. I want to wish her well with her pregnancy

and congratulate her on that.

Again, thank you for the time.

Clauses 153 to 209 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Ma: I wonder if I might be able to just make a few comments before I move the motion?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon. B. Ma: Great.

I wanted to thank the critic for his questions and for his patience, as well, as we

attempted to answer his questions. I recognize that the EDMA is very enabling as a

legislation. Oftentimes, the questions we and our constituents have about responses

to emergencies are very much about how those responses play out on the ground, so

I appreciate the critic in his efforts to ask those questions and allow me to use

examples to try to illustrate how the EDMA plays out on the ground.

I acknowledge his concerns about the development of regulations. I look forward to

our team working with him and opposition members to have conversations about those

regulations, as I had committed to earlier in the debate. We will reach out in early

2024 to ensure that we're taking opposition member feedback into account as we develop

those regulations with the feedback that we're also going to be receiving from the

public, from local authorities and working with First Nations as well.

I also wanted to thank the critic for, really, the compassion which he brings to this

file and for always reminding all of us that although this legislation is a big piece,

a big legal document, what it really means for people on the ground is safety and

security in their communities, safety and security in their homes.

Our ability to support people and communities during emergencies — the importance

of that really cannot be underestimated. We're talking about people's lives and livelihoods,

right across the province, in the face of escalating disasters.

So, grateful to the critic for the time he has spent with me on this legislation and

looking forward to the continued conversations as we work together to improve emergency

response, recovery, mitigation and preparation throughout the province.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS

RECOGNITION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 38; M. Dykeman in the chair.

The committee met at 4:51 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 38, International Credentials

Recognition Act, to order.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

G. Kyllo: Following the what-we-heard report, can the minister outline the process that followed

with respect to the consultation that occurred and the different organizations that

were actually consulted in the drafting process?

Hon. A. Mercier: Yeah. We engaged in a pretty robust engagement process leading into the what-we-heard

report. We held several round tables — sector-based as well as regulator round tables.

We spoke with several immigrant survey organizations — I'm happy to list them; it's

quite a significant amount — as well as internationally trained professionals and

advocacy groups.

We did that through a series of means: round tables — mostly virtual round tables

— as well as a survey and several one-on-one meetings. Subsequent to that and the

what-we-heard report, the civil service team then went and engaged on draft standards

guides, which included provisions of the legislation, with the affected regulatory

bodies as well.

[4:55 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: With respect to the consultations and the review of those draft regulations with the

regulators, what was the process or opportunity for them to provide any commentary?

Was that in writing? Is that information that the minister may be able to share?

Hon. A. Mercier: For the engagement on the draft standards guide, the regulators were given several

opportunities. There were three question-and-answer periods with the civil service

team. They were given a template survey, as well, to respond to. We got 22 responses

from that about data collection practices across the regulators, as well as 15 written

responses with feedback based on a template.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the standards for capturing much of the data with respect to the different

professions, can the minister share…? Was there consensus with the different regulators

on the method by which they would actually start to track the number of internationally

trained professionals?

Hon. A. Mercier: What we found was that most of the regulators are on a continuum or spectrum of alignment

in terms of where they are with data practices currently, in terms of meeting the

draft standards and guidelines.

So where there are so…. A few are fully aligned, but there's a gulf in alignment,

where there are some that are partially aligned but need extra help, and then the

ones that have indicated to us they need extra help, primarily in IT systems, to make

sure that they have the tools necessary to keep the standards. That also reflects

what we heard in engagement with regulators, which is that there is a considerable

amount of work that needs to happen on the IT side.

Now, that being said, that's why we have the credential assessment improvement fund,

which we put into place in 2019 in order to help regulators with projects to streamline

the process for international applicants.

There are examples of several successful IT projects, including one that comes to

mind, which is a project by the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to

basically overhaul their IT system to better collect and utilize that data for international

applications.

G. Kyllo: Of course, what's before us is the legislation. The minister referenced some draft

regulations and standards that were shared with the regulators. Is the minister able

to share those public-facing documents? Is that information able to be shared with

this House?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity for the member, what we engaged on were draft guidelines under the legislation

on what the standards would be. We've gone out and engaged pretty thoroughly on them.

We don't have an issue with sharing the draft guidelines, and I'm happy to make sure

that those get to the member later today.

G. Kyllo: Great. During the consultation stage with the different regulators, the minister referenced

that there were some that were in alignment but that there was also a gulf where there

were many that maybe were not as far along, I think, on the compendium, with reporting

that information.

Was there consensus, or is there consensus at this point, amongst the different regulators

with respect to the data and the information that will actually be shared?

Hon. A. Mercier: There was no, I would say, negative feedback from the regulators in terms of what

we would be looking to collect in terms of finding that baseline for the data.

The kinds of things we would be looking for and the guidelines that we indicated that

we'd be looking to collect under the legislation and under the guidelines would be

things like tracking the location and source of training and experience, looking for

what the applications' processing timelines are. How many applicants do they get?

How long does it take the average applicant? How many applicants never complete or

walk away within a particular window of time?

All these things we need to know so that we can ascertain whether or not the international

credential assessment process for a given regulator is efficacious — if they need

extra help, if there needs to be more done in terms of compliance. That's, more or

less, what we're looking for.

There has been pretty broad agreement with that. I think these things are hard to

argue with as standards, with the caveat that there are some regulators that need

the extra help, and they've indicated that to us. That's why we have that fund in

place.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. With respect to capturing the data when

the staff had the consultations with the regulators, was there reporting out? Or did

most of the regulators already have a pretty good indication of how many people were

in the queue, as an example, with respect to how big a problem it actually is?

I would just assume that during that consultation process with the regulators, there

would have been a general understanding, from the regulators' perspective, if this

was really an issue or a concern from their perspective. Just wondering if the minister

could share just a bit of a sense of the 19, I believe, different regulators.

[5:05 p.m.]

How many saw it or would have agreed that it was a considerable challenge and that

the reporting-out of the information was going to be of value and assist them in any

way, shape or form in expediting the recognition of those foreign credentials?

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd say it is a pretty clear problem that came across very clearly to me and to the

team during engagement, when we specifically asked different regulators and their

executive officers and their teams about data and data collection, that they're not

all created equally. I mean, they all represent very distinct professions that are

organized very differently.

We have a pretty good eye on the problem with the professions that are already under

the office of the superintendent of professional governance, because we are better

able to see through the powers of that superintendent and set standards on those.

There are leaders in terms of the regulators. The one that comes to mind is the one

I've just mentioned, which is the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., who have a

pretty good eye on the data collection issue.

That being said, we went and we did an initial survey and series of engagements with

the regulators –– the team did –– on the kind of things that we just answered in the

previous question that are now going to be done. They're now going to be much more

thoroughly engaged during the process of crafting the regulation, because it's a real

problem.

I can give an example that comes to my mind from the engagement, which is speaking

with one regulator, which is part of their federal consortium of regulators that has

effectively given up the initial stages of the international credential assessment

process to the federal regulator and then receives the applicants through that. That

regulator has no eyes on the problem because they just come in as if they were a regular

applicant because they go through a screening from the national body.

So it's making sure that the regulators here locally in British Columbia have accountability

for tracking that so that we have a sense of how they're doing and that another party

is doing the heavy lifting for them.

I mean, that's not an answer, I think, that really cuts it for anybody. So we're doing

that work, and that's going to be…. But to answer your question, it greatly varies

among them.

G. Kyllo: It certainly is helpful. During the consultation process, was there a general agreement

of the regulators of the need and necessity of this? And was there any comment about

the need or necessity for legislation to actually compel them to provide this information?

Or was there a general understanding that this would actually be helpful to their

organizations in achieving the needs of British Columbia?

I'm just trying to get a bit of a sense of whether this is something where the regulators

are welcoming this — whether the legislation, from their perspective, was actually

required or not — or if the information that the minister is looking to seek through

the creation of the new superintendent would have been freely given had the regulators

been asked outright.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd say, going through the engagements, that the need for standardization in terms

of data that's collected and looking for performance standards was very obvious, which

is that the regulatory landscape….

You have several different professional regulatory colleges, in this case 18, that

all have their own unique histories, that all have their own unique professional cultures

and relate to other pan-Canadian bodies in different types of ways. They have just

a maze of different complexities and interests as a consequence of that. The need

to come in and set performance standards was very, very clear coming out of the engagement.

I can just say personally, during the engagement, that I did hear from several regulators

that they were happy with the superintendent of professional governance and what that

helped them do in terms of ensuring the integrity of the regulated profession.

Again, an example would be the engineers and geoscientists, who, in many ways, as

a regulator, are very far out ahead on these things. They released a statement on

this, saying that they're pleased to see that several of their established processes

are recognized in this legislation as the standards regulators should meet.

One of the issues we've had is…. If you go and look at the regulators that do give

annual reports on data for international credential recognition…. And they don't all

do it. But if you go and compare them, the data is not comparative, because there's

not an agreement on what that set of standards should be and then what the level of

accountability should be.

I'll say as an aside…. I heard loud and clear from everyone during the engagement

that the process isn't working. But I heard consistently from every international

professional I spoke to — everyone who's been through the process, everyone who's

going through a process — that the need to ensure that there's some kind of standard

for oversight is absolutely critical for the success of something like this. So it's

not just empty words but real action, which is what we're making sure with this legislation

here, and that oversight is critical.

G. Kyllo: Of course, with Bill 38, we've got a very expensive piece of legislation. We have

yet to actually understand what the full magnitude of the cost is of creating a new

superintendent with an independent deputy minister, and we'll certainly get into some

of those costs. I'm just trying to get a sense….

Obviously, this is a long-standing problem. This isn't a problem that just arose this

year. This is an issue that's been identified and certainly brought forward even by

members of the opposition previous.

Can the minister share with this House what efforts or actions were undertaken either

by himself or previous ministers over the last seven years to reach out and to request,

specifically from the regulators, information around the recognition of foreign credentials?

You know the old adage: if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. The minister

referenced that a number of regulators do report out annually, but not all. I'm just

trying to get a bit of a sense, over the last six or seven years, what efforts were

undertaken to try and find general compliance or support by the different regulators,

or if any efforts were actually undertaken prior to the tabling of the legislation

and the consultation, which is more recent, that the minister is referencing.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd take exception to the comment that this would be a very expensive proposition

or government office. The intention here is to leverage the team and the experience

in the office of the superintendent of professional governance and to repurpose existing

FTEs. There's no intention or plan to go and seek additional funding for this. We

believe that we have the capacity and the ability to build on what we have internally.

Now, that being said, to answer the question about surveys for data collection. This

is not a new problem. This is a long-standing problem that we've been working on since

we formed government in 2017. Part of the credential recognition improvement fund

that we introduced in 2019 to help improve standards and incent the improvement has

been a part of that.

The regulators have been surveyed in 2012, in 2014, in 2015. The response rate was

never higher than 65 percent. The data could be described, at best, as inconsistent,

and inconsistent enough so as to be characterized as unusable.

The idea here is to set standards across the board for data and to make sure that

we ensure compliance. Because it is a pretty significant societal issue, I think everyone

would agree, to have folks right now who have the training and the skills and are

blocked, not by substantive skills or competency deficits but by failures in process.

I agree. We need to measure it. That's why we're doing this.

I should say, as well, there was a report released by the office of the superintendent

of professional governance this summer that does talk about the data for those few

regulators that are under the OSPG.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

I think the crux of the question is: were the regulators asked voluntarily for the

provision of the specific data that this specific piece of legislation sets out to

collect or can tell the regulators to provide? I'm just wondering what efforts have

been undertaken to obtain that information voluntarily from the different regulators

prior to the tabling of the legislation.

Hon. A. Mercier: You can't ask for data that isn't being collected and doesn't exist. I think it's

really telling that we've had surveys in 2012, 2014, 2015 with a 65 percent compliance

rate of inconsistent and unusable data. There are a lot of regulators — not to cast

aspersions, because they have a lot of obligations in terms of regulating the profession,

administering discipline, administering licensure across the board — that simply don't

collect it or whose systems don't allow them to collect and measure it over time.

We've heard that across the board. We've had regulators say to us, during engagement

and tell the team, that there is a need for government to set standards. The need

is obvious, and the need is obvious from looking at the problem, which is: this is

a problem that is not going to voluntarily solve itself. If it could, it would have.

It goes to, I think, the broader need now, what I've said before in this House, which

is that when I did my engagement, there was no one that said the system was working.

There might be differences in degree in what those changes may be, but there's a pretty

broad assessment of what the problem is.

[5:20 p.m.]

The need for oversight on things like data collection is very, very clear. It's clear

when you look at the results from previous surveys just on the response rate, let

alone the fact that that is not a 65 percent response rate of consistent, quality

data that is comparative amongst different regulators, that there is a need to set

those standards and to set the compliance.

I think the lesson from the office of the superintendent of professional governance,

which has begun work in this — and it's captured in the OSPG's report this past summer

— is that regulators will comply with the direction that is set under a system like

this. It works, it's effective, it's a proven model, and it is exactly why we're seeking

to build it up.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

Would the minister be able to share if, during the consultation process, there were

any specific regulators that felt that they were already capturing a lot of the data

which the minister is seeking to collect, in response to the legislation, of the 18

regulators? Were there any that stood out as doing an exemplary job of measuring and

managing those internationally trained professionals that were seeking credential

recognition here in British Columbia? Just to get a bit of a sense.

I'm certain that, as I think the minister has indicated — fair enough — there's maybe

not consistency. Some, I believe the minister indicated, were doing a reasonable or

a pretty good job of capturing it. Maybe those were some of the 65 percent of the

respondents to previous inquiries that were set out.

I would assume that there are probably some that were doing a reasonable job and a

number that may have a lot of work to do. I'm just trying to get a bit of a sense

of: is this going to be legislation that'll be easy for many of the regulars to comply

with? And for those that may not be capturing a lot of data, just how much time and

energy might be expensed in order to meet the requirements of the legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: To go back to an answer from a previous question, when we did, as part of this engagement

with the regulators, ask about data collection and the different types of data we'd

be looking for, for the guidelines, one out of ten of the regulators that responded

indicated that they were already fully aligned.

I can give you an example of some leaders. I mentioned the Engineers and Geoscientists

of British Columbia, who I think are not just leaders in B.C., but I believe that

within the engineering profession, they are leaders in Canada in terms of doing that

work. They've done that work in partnership. I think it's a good example of the partnership

with government to help lift them up to meet the standards, which was part of the

project through the credential assessment improvement fund.

The teachers regulatory body also keeps fairly good data on this. But that is by no

means something that occurs across the board.

[5:25 p.m.]

Most regulators that responded told us that they were in the kind of partially or

mostly aligned area with the draft guidelines for the standards we'd be looking for.

It's not monolithic between them, and where they lack alignment largely is in areas

where they'll need extra support.

We have the support there that's in place now, the credential assessment improvement

fund, to help fund the projects that they need in order to be compliant. We have the

tools to do it, and we're here ready, willing and able. It's just to make sure that

we have those standards so that they can meet them.

G. Kyllo: During the consultation process, were Indigenous peoples across B.C. consulted with

respect to the formulation of the legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: In December 2022, the program area within the ministry reached out to treaty nations,

the Alliance of Modern Treaty Nations; and FNESC, the First Nations Education Steering

Committee; as well as the First Nations Health Council; health authority; and the

B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society.

There were two responses to that, namely the Tsawwassen First Nation, which advised

that it takes no position on the proposed legislation, as well as the Maa-nulth Treaty

Society on behalf of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, which really wanted to emphasize

the importance of ensuring that professionals, particularly the caring professionals

— social workers, teachers, etc. — receive training on working with Indigenous peoples.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

This is outside of the scope of this act, being that this act primarily — not primarily

but fully — deals with process elements of the international credential process, not

the substantive competencies or technical knowledge or skills or training required

but more on the process end.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

With respect to the commentary that was provided about the request of the First Nation

about providing background or education or information about Indigenous peoples, was

that information shared with any of the regulatory bodies as far as, maybe, any inclusion

in their, I guess, criteria by which they actually provide educational information

to the different professions?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: What Bill 38, the International Credentials Recognition Act, does is impact processes

by which one becomes a registrant in a regulated profession if they are an international

applicant. So it deals with internationally trained professionals at the applicant

stage and processes.

It doesn't deal with folks who are registered and the substantive requirements for

registration. In that sense, it is out of the scope of this act and the work being

done under this act. But as an aside, I will say that there are many regulators that

have those requirements, are actively working in partnership with nations on those

requirements. The regulators under the Professional Governance Act have that as a

requirement as well.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the additional clarification from the minister.

I guess my question was that the concerns that were brought forward by the First Nation….

It's probably very valid, especially when it comes to those that are in the provision

of care, whether that be social workers or health care workers or maybe even educational

workers. I'm just wondering if that concern was shared and actually put forward to

those organizations for consideration as they start to develop their requirements

for each profession.

We certainly have made, I think, very strong efforts over the last number of years

in including training and education around Indigenous peoples in our school systems.

So I was just wondering if the minister could comment on whether he'd shared that

information with the different regulatory bodies for their consideration as part of

their credentialing process.

Hon. A. Mercier: I want to thank the member for the question. There is significant non-legislative

work that has to happen and is ongoing and is a core and critical part, I think —

and the member surely agrees — in terms of reconciliation. That work is happening.

One of the things that the office of the superintendent of professional governance

does, in addition to the professions that are directly underneath it, is act as a

resource for the other professions as well. The team has reached out to the Maa-nulth

for follow-up. That's ongoing, so that's what I'll say on that.

But the points the member makes are well taken, and there's significant non-legislative

work that needs to continue to happen. We believe that having individuals located

within government that sit at a kind of apex of professional governance allow and

facility that.

[5:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Was the Métis Nation included in the consultation process?

Hon. A. Mercier: Yes. In 2023, the program staff in the ministry met with the First Nations Education

Steering Committee, FNESC, as well as the Métis Nation.

G. Kyllo: As part of that consultation process, were third-party organizations that conduct

international credential recognition and assessment processes on behalf of regulatory

authorities consulted?

I think the minister referenced that many of these organizations rely on third parties.

I'm just wondering what efforts were undertaken to consult those third-party organizations

that might be conducting these international credential recognition and assessment

processes on behalf of regulatory authorities.

Hon. A. Mercier: The answer is yes. The most significant third party in British Columbia, which I think

is used by virtually all of the regulators, is the international credential assessment

service at BCIT. It tracks, among other things, the veracity of the credential — i.e.,

whether or not it's fraudulent.

I think we're getting ahead in terms of the act, in terms of the sections dealing

with accountability for third parties. I'll say on that….

Also, another significant source of that can be, at times, the pan-Canadian bodies,

which regulators are members of, that might be contracted to do a certain service.

It then ends up in this trans or pan-Canadian bureaucracy that the provincial regulator

loses, functionally, control over and then becomes a recipient of. So that would be

another example.

G. Kyllo: As part of that consultation…. I'm assuming that the minister or his staff would have

set out to better understand which regulators use third-party contractors to undertake

that work.

If the minister might be able to indicate…. What's the number of different organizations

that these regulators may rely on? Are we talking about a handful, or are there hundreds?

Just to get a bit of a sense of the level of consultation with the different third-party

contractors that the regulators may rely on for different portions of the work that's

undertaken to recognize the foreign credentials.

Hon. A. Mercier: We cast a really broad net in terms of the engagement.

[5:40 p.m.]

I would characterize it as a handful, in terms of the third parties that exist. You

could primarily classify them in three groups: the international credential assessment

service, which does that primary work; all of the language testing, the language schools

and the institutions that administer language tests; as well as the national bodies,

which is a significant one in terms of creating bureaucratic or process delays.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that.

Moving on a little bit, might the minister be able to provide some examples regarding

the definition of the phrase "directive of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" that's

under this act?

Hon. A. Mercier: I want to thank the member for the question. So "directive of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council"

functionally means a directive of the cabinet, as opposed to a directive of the superintendent.

And the reason that those two are there and that distinction exists primarily has

to do with the schedules later in the act and the complexity of the regulatory landscape.

So there will be different home statutes for the variety of professional regulators

that will have different ministers who are accountable for them.

As well, when we've looked at…. I'm getting ahead, but as we've looked at segmenting

the regulated professions, the professional regulatory bodies, we've done that with

an eye to their degree of autonomy versus degree of government control that exists

over them.

The

schedule 1 regulators are regulators that for a variety of reasons, have a fair

amount of autonomy. They are functionally self-governing regulatory bodies, and therefore,

there should be a higher standard when it comes to issuing a directive. So then that

rises to a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council process as opposed to a directive from the

superintendent.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the explanation from the minister, and it does make sense. So I appreciate

that.

Can the minister explain why these specific regulatory authorities were selected to

be classified as the three various levels of schedules under the act? There are the

three different schedules. I'm just wondering what criteria is undertaken to determine

whether they're class 1, 2 or 3.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member. In beginning this work, we cast a fairly broad net in terms

of regulators and then looked to barriers for international applicants. When we settled

on the schedule, the rationale for it has to do, effectively, with rule-of-law issues.

When you look at

schedule 1, what you will see is a series of independent professional

regulatory bodies, where there is statutory authority. They're functionally autonomous,

but where there is statutory authority via different ministers, that's to deal with

the conflict with other potential acts in terms of power, different powers that ministers

have in terms of those bodies.

Schedule 2 are the professional governance…. The regulators are under the PGA, the

Professional Governance Act, but subject to the authority of the office of superintendent

of professional governance, which in some ways has a pretty strong set of powers that,

in some ways, overlap.

Schedule 3 is in recognition of professional regulatory bodies — with one exception,

and I'll talk about that — that functionally have a higher degree of government control.

With those ones, there is less of a need for some of the stronger compliance tools.

Because they are government Crown agencies or entities, they are able to be directed

by a minister if they are not compliant, with the sole exception of the Law Society

of British Columbia, which is in

schedule 3 out of deference to the independence of

the bar.

The Law Society is not going to be left out of this. I mean, that is a profession

with a fair degree of international applicants. But some of the powers that would

otherwise be in

schedule 1, which are very strong, arguably, would cause some concern

in terms of the independence of the bar. So in deference to that and in deference

to that as a kind of constitutional legal principle, we've placed them in

schedule

G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain why the definition for the phrase a "specified person" for

a

schedule 1 regulatory authority includes "director" and not "board member"?

Hon. A. Mercier: For

schedule 1 of the act, there is a variety of different corporate structures that

the regulatory bodies have. So the idea of specifying director as opposed to board

member is an acknowledgment that we want to look for the broadest term to make sure

that we capture the whole range of different titles under that act and structure,

whereas the professions that are under the Professional Governance Act have board

members because the PGA stipulates board members.

[5:50 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Might the minister be able to explain what is meant by "substantially equivalent"?

That's in paragraph 2. Then, also, if the minister might be able to provide an example.

Hon. A. Mercier: In 2(a) — "assess whether an internationally trained applicant has knowledge, skills,

ability and judgment that are substantially equivalent to those required for certification

in the regulated profession by the regulatory authority" — essentially, what we're

doing is defining the meaning of the international credential assessment process and

what part of the role and duty of a regulator brought to bear on an applicant is captured

by that.

Substantially equivalent, determining the substantial equivalency of the scope of

a particular profession, is rightly the obligation and duty of the professional regulator.

The word, the modifier or adjective, "substantially" is used there because we're looking

for…. Regulators generally look for substantial equivalency and not direct or particular

equivalency, because that means identical training and identical practice and acknowledging

that there are differences.

Ultimately, it's their duty to set professional standards to determine scope of practice

and look at those substantive questions and settle them. The determination of that

to international applicants is the international application assessment process, and

that's what the act captures. What we're not doing is wading into or making determinations

on what it means to be substantially equivalent, because that would be to take the

power of the regulator on directly ourselves.

G. Kyllo: I understand that part of the purpose of the legislation is to provide a bit of consistency.

And the definition for "substantially equivalent" does not exist in the

definitions

page. I certainly appreciate that it will be up to the regulators to make that determination,

but it does sound quite subjective. Different regulators may interpret "substantially

equivalent" very differently.

I think this is maybe what part of the challenge might be. You get your engineering

degree in another country with a different set of construction standards. The education

that you get in another jurisdiction would be probably very different than what you

might learn here in British Columbia or in Canada.

I think it is important that if, as the minister has indicated, part of this legislation

is to provide consistency for the different regulators, they might turn their minds

to having a look at maybe a better legal definition of substantially equivalent. Otherwise,

I guess, the

interpretation of that definition by different regulators could mean

very different things. So it is quite, I certainly believe, a subjective term in its

essence.

I'm just wondering if the minister might be able to comment further on if that is

a concern, if that was a concern that was identified. I would assume that as internationally

trained professionals are looking to have their credentials recognized here in British

Columbia, that would be one of the concerns that a regulator may have. "Well, yes,

you are trained as an engineer in another foreign country." But who's making the determination

whether that would indeed be substantially equivalent to what the requirement might

be here in B.C.?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd say a few things. Going through all of the engagement we did over this past year,

I spoke to a lot of internationally trained professionals. I heard a lot of what I

would characterize, frankly, as horror stories that were relayed to me about how bureaucratic

and life-affecting the process can be — and, in particular, the delays that are caused

by unnecessary or redundant steps within the process.

I will say this. I did not speak to a single international professional that didn't

tell me that if there was additional training or work or skills that they needed to

have to meet licensure that they wouldn't do it.

Everyone said: "Look. If you can tell me honestly, and give me an honest assessment

of, 'Here's the work that I need to do because the scope of practice differs so much

or the education differs so much, and it's outside of that realm of substantially

equivalent,' I will do it. But I'm sitting around waiting on a website, clicking refresh

for 12 months to see if my application has even been received, let alone assessed

and accepted."

I would say that we're very clearly aiming at those unfair and unnecessary barriers

around process, while respecting the regulatory role to set those standards.

I would say this. When we did this, when we did all this engagement and we looked

at the legislation, it was clear that there is not an obligation on regulators to

make sure everyone that is substantially equivalent or everyone that is capable of

practising has a pathway to and is practising.

To fast-forward to

part 3,

section 12 of the act, we've laid out an obligation, a

positive obligation, on the regulators that are within scope here where, effectively,

one of their purposes is to enable the certification of any internationally trained

applicants who have the knowledge, skills, ability and judgment that are substantially

equivalent to those required for certification, which means they don't just have an

obligation to ensure the integrity of the profession. They have an obligation under

this act, should it pass, as regulators, to ensure that the process is fair, efficient

and transparent and enables that.

To answer the member's question about the issues that were raised to me throughout

the engagement, the biggest issues that were raised to me were not issues of folks

being blocked by scope-of-practice or competency issues. They were folks who couldn't

get through and get their credentials recognized because they had to sit through,

potentially, years of frustrating red tape.

One of the things that we can do through this act, I think, with the superintendent

of international credential recognition, is help share the best practices that are

there that are focused on competency assessments, so that regulators are taking real

stock of what the competencies of an international applicant is.

That's something that — I'm sure we'll get to this in debate — there are many regulators

that use Canadian work experience requirements as a proxy for. But what we really

want to get to is competency-based assessments on those substantially equivalent skills.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share: is the term "substantially equivalent" a term that is defined

and utilized by the regulators, the 18 different regulators? Is it a consistent term?

Is there a consistent definition? Is the term even defined within the different regulators?

I certainly appreciate the reference. I certainly appreciate and respect the response

the minister has provided, but substantially equivalent, I think, could mean very

different things to different people.

[6:00 p.m.]

I'm just wondering if that is a term that is commonly used amongst the regulators

and if there was any information sought from the different regulators on their own

interpretation or definition of substantially equivalent.

Hon. A. Mercier: I would advise some caution over laying out a limiting definition of a term like "substantially

equivalent."

What that would effectively do, were we to do that, as the Legislature, would be to

take what is effectively at the heart of the international credential assessment process

and the role of the regulator onto ourselves to do, to begin to make that determination

of whether or not it's substantially equivalent. Making that determination is properly

and appropriately the role of the regulatory authority.

It is a term that is used in other statutes or other acts in references. The Health

Professions and Occupations Act — and the Health Professions Act, before it — uses

the term "substantially equivalent," once again giving that latitude so that the professional

regulators can do their jobs. I don't say that in a facetious way. I mean in terms

of actually administering the processes used in the veterinarians home statute, for

instance, that sets up the College of Veterinarians.

It is core to the assessment that the regulators do, in a substantive way, to make

those determinations — and why we have professional regulating bodies to begin with

— and to regulate the standards of the profession. Those who are closest to the profession

are the best poised to make that assessment, albeit there are, for some professions,

better and more efficacious ways to do that, moving towards competency-based assessment.

Part of the role of this statute, in terms of creating — we didn't canvass data collection

earlier — data collection standards and reporting obligations, will be to have eyes

on the problem and actually measure if there is a more discrete issue going on there.

I would advise caution on displacing what is properly the role of the regulatory authority.

Through that, it's important to have that degree of flexibility and latitude for them

to do their jobs but, at the same time, make sure that we tighten up and streamline

the process so that people aren't just mired in endless waiting at different steps.

G. Kyllo: Does the term "substantially equivalent" exist? Do the regulators actually utilize

that turn of phrase when they're reviewing and basically making their own determination

on the suitability of internationally trained professionals?

I appreciate the response from the minister. It does appear to be a term or a reference

that provides, I think, as the minister has even indicated, a fair bit of latitude.

If we're using language that is also utilized by the regulators….

I'm just wondering if the minister has any concerns about the reference to "substantially

equivalent" in the legislation, if it is also a term that's utilized by the regulators.

I certainly haven't spoken to the regulators. So I don't know if it exists in their

terminology.

[6:05 p.m.]

Is there kind of a standardized term or a legal definition of "substantially equivalent"

that is widely known? Again, as the minister indicated at the outset, part of the

intention of legislation is to provide some consistency. I think that consistency

is important. This might be an opportunity to provide that clarity.

Hon. A. Mercier: What "substantially equivalent" does in this provision is…. Maybe a way to think of

it, for the member, is as an interpretive guide to the process of assessing international

credentials.

Determining whether or not credentials are substantially equivalent is the international

credential assessment process. That, at its core, is the substantive part of the process

that regulators are going to engage in to determine if one thing is another. I would

say….

The member made a comment about suitability. I don't think this is what the member

intended. The regulators aren't so much looking for suitability or fit — and ought

not to be — in terms of assessing international credentials. What they're doing is

assessing whether or not the skills, competency and knowledge for a given profession

are substantially equivalent from one jurisdiction, where they've been trained, and

what they've received, to here in British Columbia.

I would really caution against a body like the Legislative Assembly, through a definition,

which could have all kinds of potential adverse impacts, limiting that process and

ascribing certain particulars to it in terms of taking, then, the power and ability

of the regulatory authority unto ourselves in a substantive context. It would displace

the need for professional regulators themselves because one would be taking that on

by defining it. What it really means is the process of assessing and comparing those

knowledge, skills and competencies.

I should say, as well…. It is used, for instance, by the veterinarians, etc. But you

could just read that as the international credentials assessment process.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

I think we're trying to achieve the same thing. We have, I think, both heard from

internationally trained professionals that there are a lot of challenges with the

process. Maybe a lot of uncertainty. You enter the process, and you don't even necessarily

know where you are in the queue. It could be a year or two or three, and there's little

reporting back.

The process itself is part of it. I do appreciate that part of the legislation is

to try and get at that so that at least there's some reporting out and some accountability.

[6:10 p.m.]

The other piece that I have certainly heard, and even read an

article in the newspaper,

is that the regulatory authority will make their own determination on the suitability

of what would be considered the equivalency. Unless there is some set of standards

or, I guess, a common understanding of the definition of what would be determined

to be "substantially equivalent," then that definition or the

interpretation of that

still will lie with the regulator. The regulator can make their own determination

on what they feel is substantially equivalent.

I guess this really gets back to the crux of the matter. If we have internationally

trained professionals that are unable to obtain their foreign credential recognition

in B.C. by a regulator, which may determine that the education experience qualifications

that they may have obtained in another jurisdiction…. It's subjective. It's up to

the regulator to make their own determination on what they believe to be as substantially

equivalent.

I do think this comes back to, kind of, the heart of the matter. I may not even be

suggesting that the minister is the one that actually determines that, but there should

be some consistency with all the different regulators as far as what the term "substantially

equivalent" actually means. How is that going to be quantified? Or is it just up to

the regulators to make their own determination on what their definition or

interpretation

of that term is? So I do believe that this is a really important piece.

Again, as the minister has indicated, a big part of the bill is to provide that consistency.

If it is not well-defined or clearly laid out by the different regulators, we will

continue to have this inconsistency on the regulator's determination of what would

be a substantial equivalent.

Hon. A. Mercier: I want to thank the member just for the point of clarification in terms of suitability.

Obviously, I think the member is saying that he's not talking about the suitability

of a particular individual per se, but the assessment of the suitability of the equivalency

of the skills, competencies and knowledge that the regulator engages in, based on

the example he gave.

I would say that it's important that it's kept broad so that it captures the processes

that it needs to capture, as regulators are looking at assessing a whole range of

different competencies and skills, as opposed to limiting it. Ultimately, the determination

of whether or not that substantial equivalency is there is going to be on the regulators.

We just need to make sure that that's transparent.

Section 12 of the act, as well as setting on the obligation the international credential

assessment process is "(

i) fair, efficient and transparent, and (ii) enables the certification

of an internationally trained applicant who has knowledge, skills, ability and judgment

that are substantially equivalent to those required for certification," also sets

out an obligation "to ensure the international credential assessment process assesses

internationally trained applicants respecting certification requirements that relate

to the protection and promotion, as applicable, of the following: (

i) the safety,

health and welfare of the public; (ii) the environment; (iii) animal or plant life

or health; (iv) consumers."

So in that way, it sets out a balance of considerations that need to, I think, properly

be considered by regulators during the process.

I'll give an example of a competency that is generally assessed across the board,

[6:15 p.m.]

You might not need to have the highest degree possible if you have the functional,

working, occupation-specific knowledge that's important for practice in the profession.

So I think it's very important, on that part, for a whole variety of reasons, to keep

it broad. It also allows flexibility for regulators entering into mutual recognition

agreements, or what get called, I guess, in our jargon, MRAs.

Mutual recognition agreements are agreements signed by one regulator from the home

jurisdiction here in British Columbia with other regulators abroad, and they're effectively

labour mobility agreements, based on the substantial equivalency of the skills. A

good example of that would be chartered accountants, who have a mutual recognition

agreement, I believe, with India, such that accountants are able to move between those

two jurisdictions provided they meet the criteria in the MRA in terms of practice

licence or everything else.

There's a premium, I think, in terms of having an efficacious process for applicants,

in ensuring the protection of the public on all the standards that I just mentioned,

on keeping it broad enough so as to be flexible to capture the maximum amount of process

during the assessment while also still allowing some latitude.

G. Kyllo: All right. I appreciate the response from the minister.

What I'm hearing is that it will still reside with the regulators to make their own

determination on what they perceive to be substantially equivalent.

I would think that there would be an assessment process where…. The minister referenced

an accountant in his example, a mutual recognition agreement that might exist with

another jurisdiction. But for other professions, whether that's 90 percent of similar….

If you look at engineering as an example, the types of construction in many parts

of the world are very different than what we might have here. An engineering individual

might have their engineering degree granted in another jurisdiction and may not have

the experience or the work history with the type of construction that might exist

here, even though the schooling may be very consistent.

I think we can maybe just agree to disagree about the value of having a definition

that is commonly accepted by the different regulators. But I'll move on.

Actually, that's all I have for

section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

G. Kyllo: What information was used to form the various levels of regulatory authorities as

they are outlined in the three schedules of the act? I know the minister did provide

a bit of insight, but I'm just wondering how it was just these specific professions

that were identified.

Were there other professions that were maybe identified and chosen not to be part

of the list, or is this all-encompassing and inclusive of all the different professions

that were considered?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Just on, then, the question of the regulatory authorities and professions that are

in scope: the 18 regulatory authorities and the 29 professions that are under the

schedules in the act.

When we looked at selecting them, we began with the acknowledgment that this House

recently passed the Health Professions and Occupations Act, which sets out a superintendent

of health professions and occupations, with a considerable range of authorities and

oversight authorities, but specifically, as well, with extrajurisdictional applicants

— international applicants in that field. Those tools have been given by this House

to that body with those professions, and that work is underway.

We began with a process of elimination with regulated professions and looked at where

the need for removing the barriers is. I'll give some tangible, concrete examples

for the member. In this sense, when I use the word "barrier," I'm not so much talking

about the process barriers we're trying to eliminate but the barriers to entry into

the profession itself, being educational investment in time.

There are some things that one could technically consider to be, and are, a regulated

profession but are different in kind than the regulated professions under this act.

An example of that would be, for instance, an ICBC driving instructor, a profession

where there is regulation, where the investment of education time is different in

kind than for an engineer, for instance. Pest management would be another example,

where an online test is effectively the barrier, in terms of time and investment,

to getting into that occupation, which is of a different kind.

The focus was really on making sure that this reasonably complements the work done

on the Health Professions and Occupations Act. The two superintendents will be working

hand in hand towards guidelines and standards — that work is underway in Health —

and then making sure that it makes sense in terms of the professions that are landed

on. I think we've got there.

G. Kyllo: Did labour market surveys, in any way, provide any guidance to establishing which

professions were included?

I know that years ago there were lots of labour market surveys that were undertaken

around the province to identify professions that were in high demand, where we had

a lack of individuals able to work in those different sectors. I'm just wondering

if labour market survey information helped to direct the minister in identifying these

29 professions.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: There's an obvious shift going on in the labour market in British Columbia and Canada

right now. I know the member is very, very well attuned to that. We talk a lot about

it in the context of needing to fill one million job vacancies in the next year.

I would say that what's really the primary, animating focus of this legislation is

about basic fairness and social justice for individuals who have substantially equivalent

skills and training but face barriers to having their credentials recognized.

While pressing labour market issues that are current are definitely important, and

this bill, in my view, will help alleviate many of those pressures in certain segments

of the labour market, the primary, determining factor has been about the barriers

and complexity around the process for the individuals going through it.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Let's pick on lawyers. Why not? I see lawyers are one of the professions. I

certainly haven't heard of anybody that feels that there's necessarily a big shortage

of lawyers out there in the workforce. But there are other skill sets that we do know

we're in short supply of — early childhood educators, as an example.

When we talk about fairness and the work of government to try and ensure that we have

substantial equivalency, undertaking to ensure that individuals that have training

have the opportunity of working in B.C., I just think to the early-childhood-educator

piece as an example. There's a real shortage in the province. I think it has even

been acknowledged by government.

When we talk about what would be determined as being substantially equivalent, you

could have a certified teacher that has taught for 25 years in a school system, who

may be retired, who might be willing to come back and work as an early childhood educator

to help fill that gap, yet their teaching degree and 25 years of experience educating

children does not meet the test of "substantially equivalent."

Certainly, a teacher that I spoke to about six months ago indicated that for them

to work as an early childhood educator, they would have to go back to school for two

full years, which doesn't make a whole bunch of sense.

I appreciate that, from what I hear from the minister, these 29 professions appear

to have largely been driven by individuals that have maybe responded to some of the

outreach work that was done initially. That may be what has driven those to be on

this particular page.

It seems to me, when the minister has indicated that one million job openings need

to be filled over the next ten years, and we do have a shortage of different workers

in different professions around the province, that this would have been the opportunity

to provide that fairness and that opportunity for individuals — to identify and determine

what would be substantially equivalent in order to meet some of the growing demands

in our province.

Maybe one more time to the minister. I just want to clarify that labour market surveys

or actual demands for different jobs, skill sets or professions in the province were

not a consideration of identifying these 29 professions that are part of this legislation.

Rather, what was directing this was largely from the consultation and individuals

that felt that the process was either unfair or not timely.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I reject the assertion that it's either-or in terms of which professions are being

tackled here. I think you can do both.

I think that this act does do both in terms of looking towards professions that have

significant barriers, but also looking towards professions that we have a key societal

demand for. While I take the member's point about lawyers — surely he meant present

company excluded — there is also a crisis of access to justice and making sure that

we have enough counsel to ensure the efficacious and well functioning of our system

of justice and administrative justice across the province.

But early childhood educators are an obviously important profession that we, as government,

have done substantial work on, that my friend the Minister of State for Child Care

has done — is doing currently — a substantial amount on. But we can do both.

What we started with, and it wasn't based on…. When we looked at these professions,

it wasn't based on the loudest voices of who came forward during regulation and said:

"Hey, I'm facing barriers here." I mean, that is important, to speak to folks where

the rubber hits the road and to understand the lived experience of international applicants.

We started by looking at the world of regulated professions and the professional regulatory

authorities as a whole and acknowledging that the health professions are situated

under the Health Professions and Occupations Act, where there is a superintendent

of health who is imbued, through that act, with those powers — arguably more significant

powers, in some senses, because that act is concerned broadly, as well, with the professional

regulation of those professions, beyond even just international credential recognition.

We then removed the professions and regulatory authorities like ICBC, which regulates

driving instructors, because the barrier there in terms of investment and time and

education for an individual to do that job doesn't rise to this level. For the same

reason, we removed pest management. You don't need a bazooka to kill a fly.

G. Kyllo: The 29 professions that are captured under this piece of legislation include certified

technician, social worker, lawyer, architect, professional geoscientist, yet early

childhood educators — this is just one example that I know we have a real shortage

of in the province — did not make the cut.

Just trying to have a better understanding on how the assessment was undertaken to

determine why these 29 professions and why not some of the others that we do know

we have a shortage of trained professionals across the province.

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity for the member, in

schedule 3, column 1 is the director of early childhood

educator registry. In column 2, the regulated professions are stipulated: early childhood

educator and early childhood educator assistant. Those are encompassed within those

professions.

G. Kyllo: Probably a bad example, but thank you for pointing that out.

What I'm trying to better understand is: why just these 29? Were there other ones

that were considered and didn't make the list? Or is this substantively all of the

professions that need to be addressed, from the minister's standpoint?

[6:35 p.m.]

There are many other professions, I would assume, across the province that are likely

not captured on this piece of legislation.

Hon. A. Mercier: I appreciate the member's question. For clarity, what we've looked at is we looked

at the regulated professions as a whole and professions that are regulated by a governing

entity that have licensure requirements or, functionally, barriers to registration

or regulation around registration. There are professions that lack that.

We looked at those because that's really the target of this legislation. It's ensuring

that the assessment processes there are done in a fair and equitable and efficient,

transparent manner. Then we looked at the necessity of having the tools in this legislation

brought to bear on those professions.

I illustrated in my previous responses the duplicative work it would have for the

health professions, because we have

an act that does this for the health professions.

That's a new act that is setting up a superintendent of health professions and occupations.

That's roughly 25 professions. There's an amalgamation process with the regulatory

colleges going on underneath that act.

Then we looked at the remaining professions. To answer the member's question, yes,

there were some professions that were removed. I would suggest that those professions,

like the ones I've mentioned, have low barriers — like ICBC driving instructors, for

instance.

It's not that that's not a critically important job. I, as someone that drives on

the road, thoroughly believe that that's an important profession for us to have in

terms of maintaining public safety and just regular licensing requirements. But it's

not one that has a substantial barrier in terms of investment and time. It's really

about making sure, in terms of applicability here, that it's pointed towards where

it's going to be the most the useful and the most practical.

What I would suggest, because I know the member has raised labour market demand….

What I would suggest is that this is going to be a net benefit for these professions

and that I really do think that you can do something that is the morally right thing

to do and the just thing to do but is also just good economic policy as well, which

is captured in this act. It is removing barriers for folks in those professions.

It's not just the right thing to do for them. It's also going to be a benefit and

make us a more attractive jurisdiction when folks look at where they want to immigrate

to within Canada.

G. Kyllo: I was going to ask again if the minister might be able to provide a list of professions

that might have been considered but did not make the list. Is that something that

the minister might be able to share?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'm happy to have the team, as we go through and look at the guidelines, also furnish

the member with additional information.

What we did is we looked at the regulatory bodies, so that we are targeted towards

the regulatory bodies, and then looked at the barriers as well as the tools that are

currently available and went forward from there. I'm happy to provide them.

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.

The minister did reference pest management as an example. I'm sure that there were

many that might have been considered. If the minister would be kind enough to provide

a list of those that were considered but not included as part of this legislation,

I would appreciate that.

There are also other regulatory authorities, whether that be environmental operators,

certification programs, mining health and safety, Technical Safety B.C. Just wondering

if there was a reason why those specific organizations did not make the cut and are

not formed as part of this legislation.

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, when we looked at the different examples that

the member gave about mining or about trades…. I'm happy to go into those.

In terms of mining, that would be a good example for a lot of the professions or occupations

there that are either low barrier…. And I don't mean low barrier in terms of it being

difficult or important work — it obviously is — but low barrier in terms of investment

of time or is heavily jurisdiction-specific in terms of it.

[6:45 p.m.]

When you look at mine supervisor, mine blaster, fireboss — those types of professions

would fall within that category.

For skilled trades, we regulate skilled trades through SkilledTradesBC. Skilled trades,

obviously, were pretty radically deregulated in the early 2000s, where government

went through a process of stripping down barriers, modularizing training and effectively,

I think, put in place a bunch of very ineffective, ideological reforms that were conservative

to the point where not even Mike Harris or Ralph Klein followed us.

We're in the process of building back from that and restoring regulation to the trades.

It's a unique opportunity in a lot of ways, because what it allows us to do is build

out robust challenge pathways based on competency assessments, which would be the

envy of any of the other regulated professions based on that, for the skilled trade

certification trades.

That's working. The proof is in the pudding. Today is the first day of November. It's

Apprenticeship Recognition Month. We put out the numbers today, but we have seen a

staggering jump in the amount of apprentices that are registered — 8 percent overall

annually. It's three times that in the skilled trade certification trades.

Although it's not applicable to this, I'm sure the member is aware, and if he's not,

that we're looking at the next tranche of those trades now. We'll have more to say

on that in the coming months.

Really, it has to do with the nature of the regulation, the barriers in place and

the other policy tools that are in play. We're happy to furnish that along with this

set of guidelines, or the draft guidelines, which we'll make sure we get to the member

through email.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada