Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

7, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS

RECOGNITION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 38; H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On clause 12 (continued) .

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

Credentials Recognition Act, to order.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister state how many of the regulatory authorities that are listed in the

three schedules have established bylaws or policies regarding procedural matters relating

to international credential assessment processes?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: More or less, all the regulatory authorities listed under the act have, in one form

or another, a bylaw or a policy of varying degrees of formality. What this provision

does is ensure that….

I should say that for some regulators, that work is done in part through the federal

regulatory body. So this more or less puts the onus to have it on the provincial regulator,

and it works in tandem with clause 19 of the act, which sets out that they have to

publish those bylaws or policies on their website. So what this does is it sets up

that mechanism in the interest of transparency.

G. Kyllo: The minister indicated "more or less." I'm just wondering if the minister or his staff

had undertaken a cross-regulatory scan and actually made direct inquiries to determine

which of the 18 different regular bodies have policies and bylaws specifically related

to international credential recognition.

Hon. A. Mercier: We did undertake the work. The team did undertake the work and did a jurisdictional

scan. It's not all strictly comparable as between the regulatory authorities. It varies.

It can vary quite considerably in terms of formality. I don't have the information

from that scan at my fingertips now, but I am happy to furnish it to the member if

that's something he'd like.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to confirm that all regulatories have some form of bylaw or policy

associated with their work to establish the criteria for the recognition of international

professionals?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: To answer the member's question, there are bylaws or policies, because not all of

the regulators have bylaws, across the board, but they don't all make the same distinctions.

For instance, there are some regulators that won't make the distinction on whether

or not an applicant is an international or domestic applicant. They'll make the distinction

based on the accreditation of the program that they graduated from.

What this does is this sets out a baseline in terms of the requirement for them all

to have it, and then it works in tandem with

section 19 to make sure that that's then

published and knowable by the applicants. So there is a baseline for a measurable

process.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that this particular

section doesn't dictate whether it's a bylaw, a

policy. It's an either-or, and I would assume that it could be, potentially, both.

What is the expected timeline? Because the legislation clearly sets out that the regulatory

must have bylaws or policies respecting the following…. I know we'll get into the

reporting function in

section 19, but with respect to the must have, is there any

expectation from the minister as far as the timeline by which those must be made available?

We can certainly get into the public-facing notifications on their websites when we

get to

section 19. But for those that may not have policies or bylaws that capture

or meet the intent of the legislation, is there an expected timeline by which this

legislation will provide those organizations, those regulators, in order to have that

information available?

Hon. A. Mercier: The act will be brought into force through regulation with an anticipated enforcement

date around summer 2024 when the regulators will be expected to come into compliance.

The team has been working with the regulatory authorities, so a good deal of the work

is already underway.

G. Kyllo: Should those regulators not have the policies or bylaws in place by summer 2024, would

that trigger compliance efforts by the superintendent and the potential for fines?

Hon. A. Mercier: The intention, in terms of the enforcement for compliance with the act, is an education-to-compliance

model. The act does lay out a considerable range of tools to make sure that at the

end of the day, regulators are in compliance.

But the goal here is to have the superintendent — much like the superintendent of

professional governance — work with the regulators to bring them into compliance and

to, frankly, preserve the flexibility of the superintendent to be able to adapt and

adjust to whatever scenario they happen to be confronting with the regulator.

G. Kyllo: In previous clauses, we did talk about the opportunity for the superintendent to develop

what he or she would determine as best practices. Will those best practices be provided

to the regulators in advance of the summer of 2024, so that they will have that opportunity

to ensure not only that they have bylaws and policies but also that bylaws and policies

are in keeping or in line with what the superintendent may determine to be best practices?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: For the member, most of that work has been underway within the draft guidelines that

we provided to the member. But the answer is that there is a clear expectation that

the team is building with the regulators through that work and the guidelines and

that the superintendent will be building with the regulators such that there ought

not to be a surprise to what they are expected to be in compliance with.

It's, in some ways, pretty straightforward stuff. It does vary in between regulators

based on the professional culture, the way they do their accreditation, the pre-existing

standards that they have in place, etc. But the goal here is to be open and transparent

throughout the process, and that includes with the regulators.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the bylaws and policies…. And I appreciate that in

section 19, we'll

talk about the obligation to actually put that out in a forward-facing website so

that everybody is aware.

Is there anything that in any way is restricting the frequency by which a regulator

may update or make changes or modifications to their bylaws and policies? Is there

anything here that would restrict that? Then, in addition to that, we have been talking

lots about consistency, and I think it's important for international professionals

to have a clear understanding of what the expectation is.

Is there anything in this

section of the legislation that in any way will provide

direction to the regulators so that we don't see the potential for a regulator updating

bylaws or policies quarterly? Should that happen, what would be the expectation as

far as the obligation of the regulator to advise those international professionals

of those changes? Will it be left up to the professional to continue to be monitoring

websites to see if those regulations, or those policies or bylaws, are updated ad

nauseam?

Hon. A. Mercier: To answer the member's question, there's nothing that restricts how often a regulator

may change or update their bylaws, although I'll say that this process isn't happening

in a vacuum.

[11:20 a.m.]

The regulators all have their own home statutes or enactments, some of which require

member ratification for bylaws. Altering bylaws or policies, for some professional

colleges, is by no means a quick process. I mean, it's unlikely to see, in practice,

bylaws being continually updated to that degree.

That said, yes, the website is the primary means of transparency for potential international

applicants that have yet to apply. That's where they ought to go to see what the bylaws

are.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the opportunity or the ability of regulators to make amendments to

their policies or bylaws, is there anything set out in the legislation that requires

or compels, I guess, the regulator to provide notification to the superintendent of

what those policy bylaw changes may be, in advance of them actually affecting the

change?

Maybe to add to that, I think it has been made pretty clear that the regulator is

independent. I don't know, necessarily, that the superintendent has a veto on whether

to approve or not approve a bylaw change. I'm just wondering if there's anything in

here that would actually compel or require the regulator to advise the superintendent

of any policy or bylaw changes, as a courtesy, in advance of their putting them out

to the general public.

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd agree with the member. I think that ultimately, having a good working relationship

with the superintendent and the professional regulators is very, very important.

There's nothing in this act that compels the regulators to submit their bylaws to

the superintendent in advance of enacting them. I would suggest that in practice,

it's likely that there will be that communication, I think.

I'll say, with a caveat for the

schedule 2 professions that are under the Professional

Governance Act, that the Professional Governance Act does have a provision that compels

those professions to go through a suitability and review process with the office of

the superintendent of professional governance. That would include any changes to their

bylaw or policy, which would include bylaw changes for international credential assessment.

That's outside of the scope of this act — it is a parallel process — but that would

be for those professions.

For the rest, the determination…. Because of the diversity of home statutes and the

diversity of lines of responsibility, it was deemed most efficacious to not compel

them to do that.

G. Kyllo: I think there's likely a missed opportunity here. If it is going to be the obligation

of the superintendent and his or her office to monitor all of the different websites

for the different regulators affecting 29 different professions, to see on a daily

basis if there are changes, it would seem advisable to include reference to this section,

which would require regulators to provide notification to the superintendent, so there's

an obligation for the regulators to advise the superintendent's office of any proposed

changes — a good flag.

It would certainly save, I think, staff hours and time in trying to monitor and watch

to see when any changes are undertaken.

[11:25 a.m.]

Would the minister consider making an adjustment to provide the requirement for regulators

to compel them to provide maybe even seven or 14 days' advance notification of any

changed bylaws or policies, in advance of them actually making that formal change

and putting it on a public website?

Hon. A. Mercier: To the member's question, the team in the ministry has formed, over this process and

before, very strong working relationships, based on trust, with the professional regulators,

to the point where they speak to many of them daily and monitor things quite closely.

In my view, that relationship is best left to the office of the superintendent, with

the caveat that there are powers under this act such that if the superintendent deems

it to be necessary for them to effect the role of their office, they could make an

advance notice requirement. However, I think that's just best left to the relationship

between the bodies.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister in his response indicated

that the superintendent will have powers and could potentially provide a requirement

for the regulators to provide advance notifications. As I've suggested, it could be

part of the legislation.

Can the minister point to where, specifically in this legislation, the powers that

the minister has referred to are conveyed to allow the superintendent to make those

further regulatory changes?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: With respect to the member, one thing that we're trying not to do is place arbitrary

procedural requirements and red tape on the regulators within this process. I say

this all with the caveat that I do think that the best approach here is based on the

relationship between the office and the regulatory authorities.

[11:35 a.m.]

There are several tools in the act that would allow to deal with the issue of getting

advance notice. I say that with the caveat that that would really have to be there

to solve a problem or an issue and that the team is very dialled in to the regulatory

landscape. In terms of monitoring now all of the bylaws and policies of these professions,

it's part of the course of work. But it's well within the realm of the act, the guidelines,

to set out a must-consider requirement.

Or what could happen as well, if it's determined that there is an issue, is to say

that along through

section 19 and the obligation to post information about bylaws

or policies on the website, a requirement could be set to post proposed bylaws or

changes for a period of time in advance of those changes for greater scrutiny. But

that's assuming that is identified by the superintendent to be an issue that's worthy

of escalation. I think that that determination is properly left to the superintendent.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister, in his previous answer,

had indicated that the superintendent would have the power and authority to compel

through regulation. I'd asked specifically what

section of the current legislation

would actually provide that ability for the superintendent in order to effect that

change.

The minister has referenced the potential of adding that as a requirement to

section

19. Is the minister proposing an amendment to

section 19 to set that forth now so

that the regulators would be obligated to provide advanced notification, a proposed

bylaw or policy changes?

Hon. A. Mercier: Just for clarity,

section 19(

l) allows the minister…. And I should say: for clarity

on my behalf. What I intended to say was the minister, not the superintendent. But

it provides a residual power for the minister to make additional regulation for requirements

that have to be posted. And if the superintendent does feel that that is an issue,

that is something that we can go back and resolve through regulation to add that requirement

for posting.

It's well within the realm of possibility that as this process is up and running,

and as the regulatory landscapes evolve, and as the relationship with the superintendent

of the regulatory colleges matures, different issues will present themselves that

will require regulatory action to confront new social facts, or what have you, and

that power is an appropriate place to do that.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister, so I thank him for that.

One other question I have is with respect to the regulators. The regulators appear

to have the ability of making adjustments or changes to their bylaws or policies.

The minister indicated that it's not an easy process for some of the regulators.

I'm just wondering. Can the minister advise what his expectation level would be with

respect to an international professional that approaches a regulator to seek recognition

of their international credentials and subsequent changes to the bylaws or policies

affecting that?

Is there an expectation that when an individual comes and makes application to have

their credentials recognized in British Columbia, the information, the bylaws, the

policies are set out to the individual at the time of making application…? Will those

be consistent, or will that individual be subject to potential further changes either

to their bylaws or policies as their application is reviewed prior to actually issuing

the recognition?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This goes back to the point I made earlier about this not happening in a vacuum. There

are many different home statutes and enactments that govern the bylaw or the registrant

process for different regulatory professions and rules that they have to conform with.

What I would say, without delving into speculation on particular disputes having to

do with bylaws, is that all of the professional regulators need to act in accordance

with the principles of administrative fairness and natural and procedural justice.

That's a basic principle of our administrative law, and that must guide their determinations

and the way that they present their rules for their processes.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister, but what I did not hear from the minister

was the expectation of the ministry with respect to this bill. I think a lot of this

bill is about expediting the opportunity for internationally trained professionals

to have their credentials recognized in British Columbia.

It's also intended to provide, I think, consistency. I believe that both myself and

the minister have spoken about the need for consistency so that individuals that are

making application have a clear understanding of what their obligations are in order

to attain their credentials being recognized here in B.C.

The concern that I have, that I think many would have, is that if you enter the process

with an expectation of bylaws and policies that are X, only to find out six months

into this process there are further changes, would it be appropriate? Would it be

the minister's expectation that individuals that enter the application process…? That

any further changes to bylaws or policies would not affect their application, that

they would then affect further subsequent applications….

[11:45 a.m.]

I think, as a bit of context, we see this quite often. Individuals make application,

and then the rules get changed, which does not improve the consistency and just adds

to, I think quite often, sometimes a frustration. In this instance, it would not provide

for an expedited process.

I appreciate that the final authority may lie with the regulator, but what I'm trying

to get a sense of is: would it be the minister's expectation that these internationally

trained professionals, when they make application, would at least have the confidence

that the requirements that have been imposed upon them when they enter that application

process will not be changed while their application is at various stages of review?

Hon. A. Mercier: It would be my expectation that the regulators would exercise their power and ability

to adjust their bylaws in accordance with the laws of administrative fairness and

procedural justice in Canada.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.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