Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

6, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS

RECOGNITION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 38; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On clause 3 (continued) .

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

Credentials Recognition Act, to order. We are on clause 3.

G. Kyllo: Might the minister provide examples of what actions the superintendent would take

to establish and implement the international credential assessment process that are

fair, efficient and transparent?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, the office of the superintendent of international

credential recognition is tasked with — I'll give a tangible example — working with

regulators to set standards and guidelines to ensure that the international credential

assessment process is fair, efficient and transparent.

There's a whole range of actions they'll be doing, most of which are set out by the

legislation and empowered by the legislation, such as working with the regulatory

community on establishing guidelines for things like setting maximum times for processing,

which is a concrete, tangible action. That's something that I certainly heard a lot

about during the process we went through for engagement. Also, working with the regulatory

authorities on an education compliance model to ensure that they're compliant and

also that they're leveraging all of the tools that we have as government to help them.

One is the credential assessment improvement fund.

Once the guidelines are in place, once we get into a situation of annual reporting

as set out by the act, there will be a pretty good position to work with regulators

on those improvements.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. I had inadvertently jumped ahead, but

I do appreciate the minister answering the question. We'll follow back up on that

in a little bit.

Will the minister continue to add or remove regulatory authorities to the various

schedules of this act? So the three different schedules that are set out — is there

anticipation of any additions to those three schedules?

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, we went through a pretty thorough engagement process.

We canvassed pretty thoroughly, previously, to make a determination of which regulatory

authorities this would apply to.

Now, that being said, there is an acknowledgment that you can't foresee every circumstance

in the future. It may be that at a point in time where there is a regulatory authority,

it makes sense to add it. We've preserved that power in the act through clause 64

to ensure that through regulation the schedules may be amended to add an additional

regulatory authority should government make the determination that that's the appropriate

thing to do.

There are also specific transitional provisions to apply to that so that the immediate

effects of the act, i.e., the ban on Canadian work experience and the limitations

on language testing…. We'd be able to craft regulations around that for new authorities

so that there is some lead time for them coming in.

That's contemplated as a possibility, and that space is preserved by the act, although

right now these 29 professions, these 18 regulatory authorities, are in front of us.

That comes out of a pretty thorough range of engagement, and we're not immediately

considering any additional professions.

[2:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: As we saw with the previous health professionals bill that was brought forward, it

was very specific just to health professions. We now see a very specific piece of

legislation before us, which certainly provides the opportunity for scrutiny in this

House to ask questions about both the consultative work that was undertaken and what

the intent is. I appreciate the minister being clear.

It is now…. This legislation will open it up to government to add additional professions

to this that will be under this piece of legislation. Those changes could be undertaken

through an order-in-council, through cabinet, without the requirement of coming back

to the House.

Does the minister anticipate…? Could he give any indication on any additional professions

that they may be having a look at for potential inclusion?

Hon. A. Mercier: It's a pretty quick answer. There are no additional professions that we're currently

looking at for this. We've gone through, and we've canvassed a pretty significant

range of professions. They are these 29 and these 18 regulatory authorities, albeit

with the caveat that there does need to be the power built in to be flexible in potential

future situations.

There are currently no other professions that are under discussion. This is what we're

working with, with this act. And I think rightly so. I think these are some pretty

serious and significant professions that affect society and the economy across the

board. It's a big chunk of work for the team to take on.

I would say, for those in the regulatory world, in the professional world, that there

won't be any additional professions that are added without engagement, at least from

this government, with the regulated professions. The intention here is to be open

and transparent, as we expect the regulatory authorities to be with international

applicants, and to not be having any surprises to any profession in terms of which

act they're under.

G. Kyllo: Are there any other regulators that actually have jurisdictional authority over different

professions in the province over and above those that are actually listed and currently

form part of this legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: Through the Clerk, I have no problem with providing the member with the list, which

I believe he ought to have received by email from my minister's office.

G. Kyllo: Yes, I did receive this. It got delivered to me just before I left the chamber. I

do have it.

In addition to this, are there any other regulators that have jurisdictional authority

over other professions operating within the province of B.C. that are not formed or

listed as part of this additional information?

Hon. A. Mercier: The definition that's used and that the team has used, in terms of looking at regulatory

authorities, is the definition under the Labour Mobility Act. It gives us a number

of about 50 regulatory authorities. That can vary, at the margin, in terms of what

is or what isn't a regulatory authority, which is why we go with that list of defined

authorities.

[2:50 p.m.]

The document I provided to the member sets them out. When you break out the health

colleges, SkilledTradesBC, the additional ones here that are out of scope, as well

as those that are under the act…. That being said, there are two that I'm not seeing

here and that we would consider to be regulatory authorities under that definition,

namely Technical Safety B.C. and WorkSafeBC.

G. Kyllo: With respect to Technical Safety B.C. and WorkSafeBC, is there a list of professions

that are currently under the authority of Technical Safety B.C. and WorkSafeBC? I

know that last week, we canvassed this quite extensively. The minister was able to

share that for what he felt were low-barrier professions, there wasn't necessarily

that same need or amount of requirement to be included specifically in the legislation.

If the minister might be able to provide a bit of sense on the different professions

that are under the regulatory authority of Technical Safety B.C. and WorkSafeBC, and

what the same maximum amount of training might be required in order for them to enter

those trades. I just wanted to ensure that those two regulatory authorities are consistent

with the information the minister provided previously.

Hon. A. Mercier: The role of Technical Safety B.C., by and large, is on the regulatory side, ensuring,

once we've deemed that a particular skill is necessary to carry out a scope of work,

that there's a permit requirement there with one exception that I'm aware of, which

we can go into. What I would say is that it's SkilledTradesBC that handles the training

side when we look at, say, electricians or gas fitters, etc. The one exception on

the Technical Safety B.C. side is that they control the assessment of power engineers.

That being said, and as we've discussed previously in this House, trades training

was pretty brutally deregulated in the early 2000s. It was a policy that I certainly

don't agree with, and it was a radical removal of barriers — arguably, I think, a

lot of necessary barriers, which are just the need for training, in a lot of respects.

It had a pretty significant impact on apprenticeship in this province. Laying off

all the apprenticeship advisers and getting rid of all the regulation meant that red

seal endorsements and trade qualifiers nosedived immediately preceding that period

of time, from which you could draw a line to the skilled-trades crisis that we have

now.

[2:55 p.m.]

We're going through a whole process right now to restore compulsory skilled-trades

certification. What we've seen with that, as we build that out — we're doing that

in an engaged, industry-based way — is that apprenticeship right now is running on

all cylinders.

We're in a record-breaking year; 40,920 apprentices registered in the 2022-2023 budgetary

year. That is an 8 percent increase over the previous year. That is a 20 percent increase

just on new registrants. And what we're able to do as we build out the skilled trades

certification requirements –– which is, I think, where the member is going with this

–– is we're able to build out robust challenge pathways that are competency-based,

that are streamlined and that I think would be the envy of any of these professions.

But to answer the kind of more technical side of the question on Technical Safety

B.C., it does play a different role than, say, a professional college in terms of

controlling the training,

whereas that would be with SkilledTradesBC, WorkSafe. They

kind of go together as a basket of authorities.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. It didn't necessarily entirely focus

on the question at hand.

I think I will take liberty to talk a little about some of those significant changes

that were affected, about reducing barriers, making it much easier and more streamlined

for individuals to pursue a career in trades training.

What we certainly have seen with the introduction of compulsory trades — a requirement,

a mandated requirement for individuals that are working in specific trades to actually

register…. But registering alone does not provide any benefit to skilled workers across

the province.

What we've seen is, largely, the SkilledTradesBC budget frozen — $20 billion in increased

taxation received by this government over the last six years but no new money, largely,

for SkilledTradesBC. We've not seen any increase in trades training seats, and that

really, truly is the measure. The compulsory trades requirement does require anybody

working in specific trades to actually register, but it does not have any mandatory

requirements for skills training.

Previously, the previous minister had responsibility for this portfolio. I know we

canvassed it quite extensively. Compulsory trades training is going to require and

put a lot more individuals to be registered with SkilledTradesBC. But the biggest

question is: what is government going to do to ensure that the trades training seats

are available for those workers? Sadly, what we heard was that there was no net new

increase in trades training seats for many of these trades that were brought in under

compulsory trades.

The minister can certainly boast about an increased number of registrants, but until

there's a training seat and the opportunity for that individual to actually obtain

the training that's necessary for them to pursue a career in the trades, it's a bit

of a moot point.

We certainly have digressed, but the minister took us down this road, so I thought

it was important to at least put on the record my perspective on it.

As we talked about the reason and the identification of these 29 set professions and

why they form part of this legislation, the minister had indicated that it largely

had to do with the significant time and energy in the training that was required for

these specific professions. Other professions like pest management, I think the minister

had indicated…. The term he referenced was low-barrier professions, that there wasn't

the same amount of focus on identifying those specific professions to bring them into

part of the act. I have no quarrel with that. I actually agree with that.

If the minister could again clarify — I want to have certainty that the explanation

that was provided about professions like pest management, which is low-barrier — that

that low-barrier requirement also exists for both Technical Safety and WorkSafeBC

for any of the professions that may come under their auspices.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I want to thank the member for his obvious passion on the issue. I'll do two things.

I'll just clarify or remind the member of what I said last week, and if I misspoke,

I hope the House will indulge me. Then I want to just answer some of the assertions

that were made here.

When we looked through in terms of how to add which regulatory professions, we did

it on a few bases. One was that they're relatively low barrier. I use pest management

or ICBC driving instructors — I think, a pretty good example of something that you

need to have training for, but it's not the same in terms of commitment, investment

of time, etc.

The other was that there was jurisdiction. It was a heavily jurisdiction-specific

profession, and that's where the mining professions came in, where the assessment

and everything are very strongly tied to our provincial jurisdiction. Then I discussed

trades training as being addressed by a different policy, including a robust, competency-based

challenge process through SkilledTradesBC as we implement compulsory trades.

But I will just say one thing in terms of the assertions about trades training seats,

which is that in February 2022, when we announced skilled trades certification, we

announced the hiring of more apprentice advisers. You know that the other side of

the House laid them all off. We've been hiring them. But we also announced a $5 million

fund for training providers to apply for trades-training seats in skilled trades certification

trades.

In those priority trades, those initial ten, training providers could come to government

and ask for additional funding above and beyond to add additional seats and additional

capacity. I would suggest that to go further down that road would properly lie in

the estimates process. But I would say it's an incorrect assertion that that wasn't

thought about or addressed. That's in addition to the announcement that we made just

a few months ago on $5 million for organizations that promote apprenticeship and promote

essential skills and apprenticeship.

Of that money, we gave $1 million in funds to an organization called SkillPlan, which

is an industry-based organization that does essential skills and mentoring for apprentices.

There's $1 million in funding for the B.C. Centre for Women in the Trades, helping

promote mentorship with tradeswomen to address tradeswomen's issues and address the

fact that tradeswomen, by and large, are at a higher likelihood of leaving the trades,

as well as funds for the homebuilders for Access, the Aboriginal Community Career

Employment Services Society, which does some incredible work with Indigenous cohorts,

and some other organizations to promote trades training.

There has been some quite deliberate and strategic funding within that. I'll leave

that there because we're veering — and I think the member is right — from relevancy

to the act. But I would say that. I'd say that that's a discussion I think is more

properly for estimates.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

G. Kyllo: With respect to

section 4(2) of the act, I wonder if the minister can provide a bit

more context. With

section 4(2) of the act, it indicates that if there is an inconsistency

or conflict between the powers that are listed in

section 4(2)(

a) through (

d) of this

act and the regulatory authorities outlined in the various schedules of the act regarding

a relevant matter, the powers listed in

section 4(2)(

a) through (

d) of the act will

prevail.

My question is: if yes, does this also apply to

section 14(

b) of the act? I say that

because it indicates that the minister can prescribe a period by which a determination

in an international credential assessment process must be made. So a lot of language

there — just looking for a little bit of additional clarity to exactly what power

the minister may have with respect to this particular section.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: So 14(

b) would allow the minister to prescribe a period of time for a timely determination

in an international credential assessment process.

If I'm understanding the member correctly, what he's asking is…. If there is a home

statute or regulation under a home statute of a professional regulator that prescribes

a time…. Say that window of time is longer than the window of time prescribed under

this act. What this provision means is…. The provision prescribed under this act would

be paramount. It ensures that there isn't a conflict in that sense. Those are then

resolved by the operation of these provisions.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

G. Kyllo: Is the office of the superintendent considered to be an independent office, from the

minister's responsibility? Is it truly independent?

Hon. A. Mercier: The superintendent of international credential recognition will be a statutory decision–maker

under this act. They'll also be hired under the Public Service Act and be an employee

of the ministry.

G. Kyllo: Well, I take it from that answer that no, the office is not independent from the minister's

ministry. If that is the case….

Just wondering if the minister might be able to share with us why a separate office

is being created for the superintendent under the minister's ministry instead of simply

forming an additional branch within the ministry that carries out the duties of the

superintendent, as they're set out in this act.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The intention is…. We've got some very good, high-quality staff in the office of the

superintendent of professional governance that really sit, in many ways, at the centre

of professional governance and have a whole range of skills.

Our intention is not to request additional funding to fund this office of the superintendent

of international credential recognition but to leverage the policy expertise, ability,

and relationships of the office of the superintendent of professional governance and

repurpose existing FTEs, because, really, there is a lot of international credential

assessment work that goes on within the ministry to build out that office.

So to answer the member's question, he's on the right track. We don't intend to add

a complement of FTEs so much rather than repurpose and leverage that existing experience.

But I would say I do think it is incredibly important that we set this position out

in the act in the way that we have to ensure that there are direct and clear powers

and obligations, substantive obligations, about processes on regulatory authorities

as it comes to international credential recognition to make sure that the work gets

done.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister has shared previously that

there is a clear direction, at this point, anyhow, to not have additional expenditures,

no need to go to Treasury Board for additional funds but, as the minister has indicated,

to repurpose existing FTEs that are already working within the existing superintendent's

office.

Can the minister share if there has been at least a high-level overview of the staff

complement that would likely be required in order for the superintendent to fulfil

his obligations as set out in the legislation? Is that two? Is that ten? Is that 30?

If the minister could provide at least even a high-level estimation, because, as the

minister has indicated, if there is the belief that, currently, existing staff can

be repurposed, there must have been an evaluation on the quantity of the equivalent

FTEs that would be required in order for the superintendent to meet their mandate.

Hon. A. Mercier: In terms of the superintendent of international credential recognition, he or she

would need access to a pretty skilled and dedicated staff, which as we've canvassed,

exists currently within the ministry and within the superintendent of professional

governance. We have done an initial analysis of the combined offices. I say combined

offices because it's 15 to 20 FTEs that we believe we'll need as the full complement

to carry out the scope of the work of both statutes, being the Professional Governance

Act and the International Credentials Recognition Act.

It would be difficult to desegregate that because you would have people there who

might be, in a given day, doing parts of administering the different acts, right?

You can't be half in, half out on a given day, so 15 to 20 in total.

As a bonus, they'll also be managing the Labour Mobility Act, which is…. If you look

at a kind of trifecta of policies that really go together in terms of international

credential recognition, I think you've landed on it.

G. Kyllo: I'm hoping that the minister can provide a little bit more detail with respect to

the division of duties. He's indicated a complement of 15 to 20. That's a fair range

in itself. But within the existing duties that were in the existing office, I'm assuming

that they don't have a 50 percent over-complement of staff.

[3:15 p.m.]

These are going to be…. The new superintendent is going to have new duties, as set

out in the legislation. There is going to be a requirement to work with 18 different

regulators, and I would assume that in the first six to 12 months there'd be a significant

amount of work and heavy lifting to be undertaken.

Can the minister be a bit more precise on the supposed 15 to 20? Is it five and ten

or an equal number? There must have been some kind of an assessment undertaken to

clearly identify and determine what the staff requirements would be.

Maybe another question, as part of that, would be: would they be working out of the

same office or would they be working out of separate offices?

Hon. A. Mercier: Well, the member would be correct that we don't…. It's not the case that we have folks

in the ministry that are doing 50 percent of a job. Most folks — I think all folks

that I've met within the ministry — are working pretty diligently and pretty strongly

around the clock. It's a very dedicated team in the professional civil service here.

To go backwards and answer the last question first: functionally, it would likely

be a team working out of the same physical office, although if his question was about

the legal office of the superintendent, they are functionally different legal offices

with different powers. In practical terms, it would be a team working pretty closely

together, likely in the same physical space, but there are a number of folks who will

be repurposed into doing this work.

A lot of them have worked on the project of the legislation over the past year, including

a significant amount of public engagement, the work that went forward on the drafting,

and the policy work to go through. In this sense, it'll be a continuation of that

work, paired with the already existing talents of the office of the superintendent

of professional governance.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. The minister indicated that there has

been considerable time and expenditure in the consultation work around, I guess, presenting

this legislation before us.

Can the minister share what the equivalent FTE count would have been for the work

in getting to this point? Is that one or two or three?

Again, there's a significant cost associated with the legislation. It has also been,

I think, of interest to the media with respect to increasing numbers of potential

staff. The minister has indicated there are not going to be additional hires associated

with the office and has indicated that there are approximately 15 to 20. Well, if

it's existing staff, either there are 15 staff there now, or there are 20 staff there

now. I'm hoping that the minister might provide a bit more clarity on the actual number

of FTEs within the office.

If indeed two or five of those individuals have been engaged specifically on this

file for the last year, getting ready for it, I certainly would appreciate the minister

sharing that with us so that we'd have a bit of a sense of what the actual staff complement

requirements will be in order to fulfil the mandate of the legislation that's before

us.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: When it comes to our values, our society's values, a government's values, I think

they're measurable. I think what we choose to spend on as a government and how we

choose to allocate staff matters in terms of what we want to get done.

The amount of horror stories I've heard from internationally trained professionals

over the past year — you know, engineers working as gig workers, folks working as

janitors, folks leaving their profession or talking about leaving Canada because they

can't get their credentials recognized — has been absolutely staggering. This is a

high priority, and we need to make sure that that office is resourced properly and

efficaciously. We can do that by leveraging the expertise we have in repurposing.

Now, in terms of the numbers, I can give the member a bird's-eye view, but I would

suggest that if he wants a deeper follow-up and to dive down into the minutiae of

the FTEs, the appropriate place for that would be the estimates process following.

In the office of the superintendent of professional governance, there are eight FTEs.

On the project team for this, there have been eight FTEs. Now as we've said, about

15 to 20, roughly, is where this is going to land.

As we get underway with the work, we will have a better sense of work flow, but we

believe that through repurposing existing FTEs in the ministry, we ought to be able

to meet that. I think it's incredibly important that this office is resourced properly

and appropriately to do what is, I think we can all agree, some pretty significant

and important heavy lifting, removing unnecessary barriers for people.

So roughly 16 FTEs between the two teams, eight and eight, and any kind of more drilled-down

analysis, I think, is going to have to come through the estimates process.

G. Kyllo: The minister referenced two teams of eight — eight within the existing superintendent's

office and eight that have been focusing on this particular project. Can the minister

confirm: have those eight been engaged for a full 12 months to get us to this point,

or was it a lesser period of time?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: In answer to the member's question, I really would say…. Now that we're getting into

the minutiae of what FTEs were hired when and almost seniority dates per FTE, I really

do think that that is properly a question for the estimates and not a question of

the function of the legislation here.

That being said, what I will say is that we have, at any given time within government,

let alone a single ministry, a variety of projects and a variety of different FTEs

and civil service staff who move, essentially, from project to project. Or policy

analysts may take up time with one project and part of their time with another.

By repurposing, we're able to move them around and use them kind of more effectively

and more efficaciously on this. It also means that someone may come on to the project

but have been a ministry employee for a considerable amount of time previously or

a government FTE for a considerable amount of time previously, based on the flow of

how it works.

But if the member is asking and wants a drilled-down, detailed list of FTEs and, effectively,

seniority dates, what I would tell him is to raise that in estimates. I think that

right now we're getting pretty far from the act.

I get that the member is trying to make a point about cost. And on that, I would say

the two things I've previously said. One, you've got to put your money where your

mouth is. That is what we are doing by making sure that we have the employee complement

to enforce this act to remove unnecessary barriers that were left languishing in place

for decades for internationally trained professionals. We're doing that work. We're

making sure it's resourced.

The second point that I would make is that because the ministry is well managed, because

of the confluence of circumstances in the ministry, as well — such as the setting

up of the office of the superintendent of professional governance, which took a considerable

amount of the team's time but which is now set up and can be administered — we are

able to repurpose existing talent.

We're able to do this, and we're able to do this work at a premium for the taxpayer,

which I think is good public policy that ticks a lot of boxes and ultimately is going

to mean streamlining processes, removing red tape for internationally credentialled

professionals and doing it in a cost-effective way.

On the particular questions drilling down into FTE hiring history, I would direct

the member to estimates.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that the minister may be uncomfortable in wanting to provide the detail,

but I think it's incredibly important that British Columbians have a full understanding

of the impact of the legislation. Can the minister share what the staff complement

was of the office of the superintendent prior to any of the consultative work with

respect to this legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: Eight.

[3:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: So when the minister references an additional eight members that have been working

on this consultative process and the drafting of the legislation and then speaks to

repurposing, the answer is actually not repurposing the staff that were originally

part of that office. The repurpose is largely to deal with the eight additional FTEs

that have been hired in order to undertake this consultative piece.

If I'm hearing the minister correctly, there were eight individuals working in the

office. An additional eight were hired, or brought on, as part of the team to look

at the consultation and to draft the legislation. That is a fair comment. But that

was specific work associated with getting to this point. If I'm hearing the minister

correctly, we're not simply repurposing the staff that were in the office of the superintendent.

There are an additional eight staff.

I think the easy way of answering the question would have just been: it's intended

that the additional eight staff that were brought in to do this consultative work

will largely be the complement of individuals that will work to address the requirements

of this legislation.

Is the minister able to clarify if I'm getting this correctly?

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity for the member…. I take issue with the idea that there were eight FTE

that were brought in for the purpose of doing this engagement. There were eight FTEs

at the office of the superintendent of professional governance. There remain to be

eight FTEs there.

During this process, in addition to the work they've been doing with international

credential assessment, they have also been standing up what is effectively a new administrative

body, the office of the superintendent of professional governance, which is now stood

up. In addition to that, there is a long-standing branch in the professional civil

service called the credentials recognition improvement branch, which has eight FTEs.

The two have commingled and joined for the purpose of this project.

In terms of the administration of the office of the superintendent of international

credential recognition, it will be, effectively, those two commingled units. Now,

eight and eight; that's 16 FTEs. We imagine it's going to land between 15 and 20.

Part of that is needing to maintain flexibility to see what the workload is when the

rubber hits the road. We have an idea of it, but you can never be certain of these

things.

There are the two branches that will be working together. It's not like a team of

eight was hired out of the ether a year ago to work on this project. It's a long-standing

branch in the civil service that does some very important work on credential recognition

improvement, not the least of which is administering the credential assessment improvement

fund.

I would say to go into any more — and I've said this — minutiae around the particulars

of those FTE…. We're really getting into the administration of the service plan of

the ministry and less on the legislation. I will say…. It is incredibly important

that we have this team. They're a very high-calibre team. They do incredibly good

work, not just important work. They do important work very well.

We're facing some big challenges on the international credential assessment front,

and there are going to be significant changes as a result of this act, which means

a lot of heavy lifting. I'm convinced that we've got the right team and the right

people to do that work.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the additional information, which the minister didn't share in his

initial response.

This office of credential recognition had a complement of eight staff, who have now,

largely, been comprising this planning team.

Can the minister indicate when that credential recognition branch was created? What

other work were they doing that will come with them, as part of the additional requirement,

to work with the new superintendent on the international credential recognition, as

set out in this legislation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This branch of the civil service has existed for at least a decade. It's a long-standing

branch that was in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs prior to my appointment in December.

They do incredibly important policy work, and they also work with the regulated professions

on international credential recognition.

I would say one of the biggest differences here with this bill is that they will finally

have the power they need to improve and streamline the process and remove unnecessary

barriers through things like guidelines and the removal of the unfair and unnecessary

Canadian work experience requirement. There is a range of powers in this act that

they will finally have to do that work as efficaciously and effectively as possible,

but the branch itself goes back in government some time.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that the branch may have been existing for a long time. My question,

though, specifically, was: when was this eight-member team that the minister has shared

with us — the eight credential recognition FTEs –– put in place? Is this something

that has been long-standing also? Or is this something that was relatively new?

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity for the member, I'm using "team" and "branch" as interchangeable terms.

The eight FTEs that worked on the legislative project here and helped shepherd the

way are the team from the credentials recognition improvement branch, which goes back

some ways in government. Offhandedly, I couldn't tell the member how long it has existed

in government. It has existed at least ten years, at least a decade, and it was in

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs prior to its movement, in anticipation of this work,

in December of 2022.

G. Kyllo: I'm starting to get a bit of a clearer picture. There is an existing complement of

eight staff that were working on credential recognition, which is largely what this

bill is intended to improve upon and to give some additional powers to. Those eight

individuals are now going to be working under the new superintendent.

Can the minister share why there was not just a new manager put in charge of these

eight individuals to implement the requirements of the legislation that's before us?

It has been confusing in getting to this point. There has been a lot of discussion

about the complement of 15 to 20 and a repurposing of duties.

It does sound, as we've had some more inquiry with the minister, that there were eight

individuals that were working specifically on credential recognition for, it sounds

like, a number of years. It does appear that there's going to be a new, expanded mandate

which will provide additional authority for them to undertake their work in a better

manner. I have no quarrel with that, but it just does seem quite timely for us to

take this long to get to where we're at today.

With respect to those eight individual team members that are now going to be working

alongside and in addition to the eight individuals that are already working in the

new superintendent's office, can the minister share…? The 16 are going to be working

together. Who is ultimately going to have the ability to direct staff, as far as which

employees or which FTEs are working on which project? We're going to have two different

superintendents. They may have alignment on many of their responsibilities, but those

alignments are very specific.

[3:40 p.m.]

I'm just trying to understand. If you have a complement of 16 staff working within

an office, who's going to be able to determine which employees are actually working

on which file? Who ultimately is going to have the determination of how many FTEs

are working for either the existing superintendent or the new superintendent, who

has very specific requirements under the legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: For the member's benefit, as I've said previously, the superintendent of international

credential recognition will be hired through a process under the Public Service Act.

It's important, I think, to distinguish….

The member asked about a manager for the two teams. The member is correct that what

we are doing right now is going through…. This will precipitate a civil service reorganization

with the office of the superintendent of professional governance and the credentials

recognition improvement branch.

A manager, by and of itself, is, I think, only part of the picture. What we need is

a statutory decision–maker who is imbued with the power to remove the barriers, affect

the legislation and affect these tools which we are now putting into place. There

will be a process to select that individual.

We have a very strong professional civil service in this province. I think the hard

work and reaction they did in the middle of the COVID pandemic is a testament to the

ability to adapt to new circumstances. I think a simple reorganization of two branches

within a ministry is something well within the civil service's ability to handle efficaciously

and appropriately.

I'll say, for the member's benefit and for the House's benefit as well…. Really, what

we're doing is leveraging, with two different teams, two very distinct skill sets.

Those are the credentials recognition improvement branch, which has done a significant

amount of policy work and is very policy-oriented, as well as the office of the superintendent

of professional governance, which has, through that office and through the Professional

Governance Act, significant experience with enforcement and compliance in the regulatory

landscape.

It's a reorganization that makes a lot of sense. It is one that, I think, is going

to happen very expeditiously and professionally and one that is, ultimately, going

to benefit the people that we want to benefit, who are the international applicants

going through these processes.

G. Kyllo: The eight individuals that have been working with respect to the credential recognition,

this branch that the minister references…. The work that they've been undertaking,

I'm assuming, is not going to disappear and go away.

I can only assume that although they may have been repurposed for a number of months

working on this project…. If there were eight FTEs, there must have been a workload

in order to support and to justify those eight FTEs. When they come over and now will

be largely, it appears, focusing on working with the superintendent to improve the

recognition of international credentials, that will be additional work.

[3:45 p.m.]

The idea of repurposing staff if, maybe, a project is concluded…. There's no more

work to do, and then they're going to be moving over. That is one thing.

Can the minister share…? Is the work that these eight individuals are doing, as they

had previously done, as the minister indicated, for a number of years, with respect

to their credential recognition…? Are any of those duties nebulous or no longer going

to be undertaken in order to free up the capacity so that they can fulfil the mandate

as set out in the legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question. Is there any work that you could categorize

as nebulous or ephemeral that won't be done anymore?

The team won't be involved anymore in doing consultation leading up to the legislation

and putting the legislation together in and of itself. That frees up a significant

amount of time in terms of administering it. I'm not being facetious when I say that.

I mean, that was, for the past 12 months, a considerable project.

For context, I mentioned earlier that this team came over from the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs at the end of 2022, upon my and the Minister of Post-Secondary's appointments.

Previously, the team had been engaged in doing support work around policies in those

files. That slack, if you could call it that, was picked up with the extra and additional

work, as they moved over, of the legislation. So in terms of looking at the organization

of government across the board.

Now, that being said, the work that the team does with respect to credential improvement

is really quite focused and works hand in hand with the work that they're going to

be doing under the legislation. I use the credential assessment improvement fund,

which we stood up in 2019, as an example of that. It is a fund targeted towards regulators

to improve the credential assessment improvement process. They're now going to be

able to engage with regulators around meeting the guidelines set under this legislation,

using that fund in order to bring them into compliance, where necessary.

This is a reorganization that makes a lot of sense. Once again, I think we're veering,

really — I'm indulging it — into more estimates types of questions about the organization

of a particular branch of the civil service, how they spend their time and the work

that they're doing, as opposed to the substantive provisions and clauses of this act.

That being said, I'm happy to answer the question, which is when they moved over.

The legislation was the primary part of their work. They had been doing other work

in Municipal Affairs, which they stopped doing when the branch moved over.

Now that the legislation is in front of the House…. There's a substantial amount of

time that was freed up by that project. The team, I think, is going to perform pretty

highly, should this House pass this act, in terms of implementing and administering

the work.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister taking the time to provide a bit more clarity.

With respect to these eight individuals that came from Municipal Affairs…. They were

largely an eight-member team that was working specifically on the international credential

recognition.

[3:50 p.m.]

That work must remain. I'm assuming that will still be…. The minister did reference

there was some policy work and also had referenced…. I believe it was a $1 million

fund that had to be administered. I'm assuming that those responsibilities will come

with this team. So if the minister could just clarify.

It's not like they're coming over with a fresh plate with no other work that they're

bringing with them. If there is an eight complement of staff that were doing a set

amount of work, is all of that coming with them, or is the legislation providing a

reduced mandate where it's going to free up 50 percent of their time? In which case,

I could make, maybe, the estimation that the cost and the actual number of FTEs that

are in addition to this legislation and maybe working under the minister would be

then four.

But I don't know that number. I'm hoping the minister might be able to share a bit

more information so I can get a bit of an understanding of what the actual increased

cost…. And to be fair, I support the legislation for the most part, but I do think

it's important we have an understanding of the cost magnitude and to ensure that there's

adequate staff in order to fulfil the mandate.

This is where this questioning seems to be taking a long time to get to the nub of

the issue. What is the additional capacity that will be provided? How many FTEs will

the superintendent be able to exclusively rely on for fulfilling this mandate? Not,

"Well, it's going to be approximately 50 percent of 15 to 20 FTEs," because I don't

believe that's fair. There are not going to be an additional up to ten FTEs, full-time

equivalents, to work specifically on this legislation.

But I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth. Can the minister share the

workload of those eight FTEs that have come over? How much time will they have free?

I'll maybe go on to expand that. I appreciate that they may have been working full-time

on this project, but I'm assuming that the workload from within their previous requirements

didn't just suddenly get put on pause for six months. So I can't assume that all of

those eight were working 100 percent on the consultation piece. But if that is the

case, I'd appreciate the minister clearing that up for me.

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question. We anticipate that the administration of

this act, combined with the Professional Governance Act, will take 15 to 20 FTEs.

I've highlighted how we got here in terms of 16 FTEs from two commingled branches

within the ministry: the office of the superintendent of professional governance and

the credentials recognition improvement branch.

But I'll just say, to the member's pointer to his question about the work that takes

up the time of the members of the credentials assessment improvement branch: they

are doing the work already. The difference is, in many ways, that they lack the legal

powers they need to take that work to the next level.

[3:55 p.m.]

The team is already working with regulators on best practices for credential improvement.

It's working with regulators on projects under the credential assessment improvement

fund to look for ways to streamline it and make sure that they get there at the end

of the day.

They are helping regulators with mutual recognition agreements. I'm talking specifically

about the credentials recognition improvement branch and all the work that they're

doing there. But they're not empowered to do that, in a lot of respects, in the way

that this act does. It will allow the setting of guidelines and the enforcement of

guidelines.

In many ways, this act takes their work to the next level. It benefits from the recent

experience of the office of the superintendent of professional governance, which has

recently set up a superintendent that deals with six regulators and has enforcement

and compliance powers. It's not starting from scratch there, and it dovetails very

well.

Those six regulators are also under…. We're jumping ahead, but they're in, I believe,

schedule 2 of this act. They're under this act, as well, and will have to comply here.

It's a reorganization and a repurposing at a point in time that makes a lot of sense.

It's going to allow us to maximize the work we're doing for internationally trained

professionals and really see some serious improvements there, while also avoiding

unnecessary duplication and work on the administrative side.

G. Kyllo: I think I asked this question earlier. If the minister answered it previously, my

apologies.

Will this 15 to 20 complement of total staff…? The minister has referenced specifically

16, which I think we have knowledge of now. Of the supposed 15 to 20, will they be

working out of the same office?

The question that I think I posed earlier is: who will make the determination on which

FTEs are working on which file? There are two different superintendents that have

two different mandates. I just wonder how the minister has identified who will make

the final determination on how many staff are working on which file on which day and

if he does not, potentially, see that as a bit problematic, without having finite

staff that are directed under a particular superintendent.

Then further to that, just in the matter of time, if the minister might also share….

What is the expectation as far as the timeline for the hiring of the superintendent,

and what is the bandwidth by which they feel they will be required to pay in order

to identify some of the skill set necessary to undertake the legislation before us?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question.

The intention is to have the superintendent in place by early 2024. There will be

a posting that goes up. The intention is to have one job posting for both superintendents

so that an individual will fill the legal functions of both roles. What that means

is…. They can manage their office as they see fit. In many ways, they dovetail very

well.

[4:00 p.m.]

It's a management-level position within the civil service. It's the equivalent of

an executive director, when you're looking at bands of pay, if that's helpful for

the member. It's all going to be a posting that goes up under the Public Service Act.

What that allows us to do is expand and leverage the powers of the office of the superintendent

of professional governance with the credentials recognition improvement branch into

a team that is dialed in 24-7 to professional regulation in British Columbia, with

an eye to the international credential assessment process. The OSPG has been working

with the professional regulators under its remit on improving those processes as well,

and I think this is a really natural fit that's going to benefit a lot of British

Columbians.

G. Kyllo: Well, that's very helpful. I think it was certainly my expectation and understanding,

and we've now seen that it's not an additional superintendent. It looks like it now

may be a singular superintendent role to look after both levels of responsibility,

so I appreciate the minister sharing that.

I'm not that familiar with the current pay grades. Could the minister share with us

what an executive director pay scale is? What's the magnitude of that amount?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member. I'll save him a Google search. It's a band 5 position in

the civil service which has a minimum-maximum range of $119,600 and $152,599.97. So

that's the range in terms of the band for that position.

G. Kyllo: I would assume that the existing superintendent that's already working would be within

that range. This would be commensurate with the range that the existing superintendent

is making?

Hon. A. Mercier: The member would be correct.

The Chair: I'd just like to remind the hon. member that the committee is discussing clause 5

on this bill, and I encourage you to pose your questions that are clearly relevant

to that clause.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely. I always appreciate your advice, hon. Chair.

Great. Well, this has been very valuable. I think what we've been able to determine

is that there are eight FTEs that largely have been fulfilling policy work and work

in around this, and they'll be repurposed into this new office. Also, we're now uncovering

that apparently there's not going to be a new superintendent, which was certainly,

I think, my understanding initially when the bill was tabled. But now we're seeing

that there's going to be better utility of a singular position that will have responsibility.

I think, hon. Chair, for the most part, that concludes my questions around

section

5, but if you can just bear with me just one moment.

Oh, yes. To the minister: when the eight FTEs were repurposed to focus on the consultative

work, which I believe the minister indicated happened early last year, moving from,

I believe, Municipal Affairs, was there a budget adjustment, or has the work undertaken

to date…?

[4:05 p.m.]

These eight FTEs –– is their pay…? Would it be in estimates under Municipal Affairs,

or was that moved elsewhere?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member, with the caveat again that I think these are questions that

are appropriate in the estimates process. The answer is that the budget did move from

Municipal Affairs over into Post-Secondary and Future Skills.

G. Kyllo: Perfect. Thank you very much. It'll be helpful when we get to the estimates process

to understand and better determine where my inquiry needs to come.

With respect to the repurposing funding, was there a Treasury Board submission for

the expenditure that would be associated with this consultative work and development

of the legislation? Or was there any Treasury Board submission at all undertaken by

the ministry with respect to the creation of this new position?

Hon. A. Mercier: The member will know that Treasury Board submissions are governed by the principles

of cabinet confidentiality. I would direct the member, if the member has questions

on the budget around this — the administration of the budget or anything like that

— that the estimates process will be coming up in a matter of months, so he's going

to have that opportunity.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

On clause 7.

G. Kyllo: Sorry to disappoint with no questions on clause 6, but here we are.

Can the minister explain what is meant by the following segment from

section 7(4)

of this act? It states that "nothing in this

section limits the role of a regulatory

authority in respect of individuals who have been granted certification by the regulatory

authority." Can the minister just explain what is meant specifically? I think it could

be interpreted a number of ways.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The member will recall the conversation we had previously in this House about the

different application of powers, between applicants versus registrants, of regulatory

authorities, and that this act applies to applicants, with international training,

to these regulatory authorities. What this clause does: it ensures that there's a

specific limitation on the superintendent, that the powers are limited to applicants

with international training within the process.

Once you've been granted certification, which is what 7(4) says, you are no longer

an applicant; you are properly a registrant. Then a whole different range of rules

takes place under the regulatory colleges, which you then have to meet the substantive

obligations of. You've left the international credential assessment process as soon

as that certification is granted. That's in recognition of that. That's just for an

abundance of clarity for folks reading the legislation.

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

With respect to an applicant that may be having challenges with getting their foreign

professional credentials recognized here in British Columbia, once a regulator chooses,

and makes a decision, to grant a certification equivalency, any further actions after

that point are no longer under the auspices of the superintendent. Am I correct in

that understanding?

I appreciate that when your trade has been recognized, you're a registrant, and the

superintendent will have pretty significant powers with respect to how that registrant

may be dealt with. But I just want to have clarity that once their trade is recognized,

any further activities or actions that may be undertaken by the regulator are outside

the scope and powers of the superintendent. Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. A. Mercier: In short, yes. This goes back to the conversation we had about the meaning of "substantially

equivalent" in the role of the international credential assessment process. This legislation

is aimed squarely at that process. After that, once you've been granted certification,

you are a registrant of that professional college.

To use, as an example, engineers: if you have an engineering degree from another part

of the world, and you are applying here, you're an international applicant with the

Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.

The moment that they've granted you certification, you are no longer an international

applicant. You are a certified engineer in the province of British Columbia, and you

are subject to the full range of obligations of the profession that that body sets

forward and that its home statute sets forward — everything from discipline to your

commitment to the profession to continuing education and whatnot.

What this does is it's just an acknowledgment and clarity that the act can't be interpreted

so as to extend beyond its legal applicability, which is the application process.

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

I believe that part of the legislation indicates that if there has been a third-party

assessment, that third-party assessment would be valid for up to five years and that

the regulators would not have the opportunity or ability to put additional burdens

that testing would be valid for five years, and the regulator has to accept that at

face value.

[4:15 p.m.]

They grant foreign credential recognition status to the applicant. The applicant starts

practising their profession. If three months later, there is a complaint that comes

there's nothing that would preclude the regulator from having the ability of putting

additional language training requirements on that individual. The superintendent would

have no say with respect to any further efforts that the regulator may place on that

individual after they've actually received the recognition of their profession.

Hon. A. Mercier: Just for clarity. Could the member clarify? Is he suggesting, in a situation example,

that a regulator may try to impose an ongoing language requirement, on a professional,

during a disciplinary process for someone who has already been granted certification?

Am I understanding that right?

G. Kyllo: No, not at all. I'm just trying to understand, with a bit more clarity….

There's a specific

section that we're…. It's set out in the legislation that we're

reviewing right now. It indicates…. It's my understanding that the superintendent

will have no legal authority over the regulator once a degree is actually granted

or the recognition is provided to an individual.

It could be any one of a number of things. This bill sets out language requirements.

It also sets out, I think, specifically…. The minister has referenced a number of

times, even, B.C. or Canadian work experience. It's the direction of the superintendent

or the ability of the superintendent to no longer…. In the legislation that is no

longer a requirement.

I'm just wondering. If the regulator, ultimately, has responsibility for public safety

and for ensuring that the international credential recognition program adequately

meets all of the requirements that might be set out by a regulator….

Should an individual be granted recognition of their professional credentials and

there be a complaint come forward with respect to, maybe, language comprehension or

a concern come forward with respect to…. An engineer is an example. Maybe more Canadian

work experience would be of benefit to this individual in order to ensure public safety.

There is nothing in this legislation that would preclude the regulator from imposing

those types of additional training on that individual, just so I'm clear.

I think what the minister is trying to indicate is that there have been barriers,

one being language comprehension, another Canadian work experience. Government has

carved that out and said the regulator will no longer be able to, for the most part,

use those as areas to deny the issuance of international credentials.

If the minister can just…. I think the regulators also would want to have clarity

around, should there be complaints come forward or concerns be raised…. There's nothing

in this legislation that would preclude them, once the recognition has actually been

issued to an individual, from putting additional requirements on that worker.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'll thank the member for his succinct detailing of the problem and the kind of scenario

that he outlines. What I would say to that is few-fold, which is that this act doesn't

take place in a regulatory or legal vacuum. Every regulator has their own home statute

or their own enactment or set of rules that lays out their basic and fundamental obligations

to the profession.

At the core of all of them is ensuring the integrity of the profession and that people

are fit and competent to practise. As well, they need to conform with human rights

law, which means not adversely discriminating against folks because of things like

place of origin. This bill that we have in front of us, Bill 38, the international

credential assessment act, deals squarely with the application process and the assessment

of international credentials. I would posit and put forth that all of the regulators

I've talked to take their role in assessing competency and getting it right very,

very strongly.

The member canvassed a Canadian work experience requirement as kind of an example.

What I would say is that all of the regulators that I've spoken to and that have talked

to me about the Canadian work experience requirement have said the same thing, which

is that they need to get away from this kind of yardstick approach to trying to measure,

by proxy, competencies and skills and to directly measure the competencies and skills.

I believe the regulators are going to rise to the challenge. Many of them are moving

in that direction already. But that being said, it is the ongoing obligation of the

regulators in regulated professions to ensure that folks who are practising registrants

are fit to practise and are competent to practise.

They take that seriously, and they have a range of policy tools. I do not believe

that any of the regulators — and I don't, for a second, think that the member is suggesting

this — will attempt to back-door obligations here by extending the international credential

process somehow into the disciplinary process. I think that would look exactly like

it is, and they would not be successful.

I would say that they do have to handle complaints. They do have to deal with the

disciplinary process. They have to do that in an administratively fair way in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and human rights, as well, in terms of not

being arbitrary or discriminatory. So for clarity for the member, this applies to

the process of where the rubber hits the road.

Every international applicant that I have spoken to throughout this engagement leading

to this act has said the same thing, and I've said this previously. I've heard so

many times, "I've got no issue complying with the standards of the profession as they

are. And if there are things that I need to do to meet those standards, I don't have

an issue with that. What I have an issue with is this morass of red tape and bureaucratic

process towards getting into the profession," which is what this bill seeks to do.

And the discipline process is the discipline process.

The Chair: Okay, folks. I'm just going to call a recess for ten minutes, and we will return at

4:35.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

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

back to order.

G. Kyllo: Just before the break, I was asking some questions on clause 7, specifically with

respect to how, once an individual's credentials are recognized by the regulator,

the superintendent and the provisions of this particular piece of legislation, Bill

38, largely will have no force and effect on the regulator.

The reason I thought it was important to bring that up is that I certainly can appreciate

that there may be some professions where there may be complaints coming forward. The

regulators do have the opportunity of asking professionals to get some additional

training, some additional work experience, whatever it may be.

It's important, I think, to note, from what I heard from the minister, that there's

nothing in this legislation that in any way would inform or preclude a regulator from

language comprehension schooling or additional B.C. or Canadian work experience as

part of any disciplinary action or efforts that the regulator may take to ensure that

public safety is actually addressed.

That's certainly what I heard, but maybe the minister can just confirm that that is

the correct understanding and that this legislation should not be perceived in any

way as putting additional pressure on a regulator with respect to the additional work

or requirements they may place on an individual after their credentials are recognized.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I can confirm that there is nothing in this legislation that prevents or fetters professional

regulatory bodies from taking appropriate measures in the regulation of their profession

through the disciplinary process, or other processes they have, to control the standards

of the profession and conduct within the profession. This is about the process to

become assessed.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that. I think that is exactly what my understanding is. I know there's

specific language about indemnification for the superintendent, but I think it's also….

I have actually heard some concerns with respect to the regulator because the regulators

now are no longer going to be able to request additional language comprehension testing.

If an applicant can show that they've had…. If an internationally trained applicant

has submitted an application for certification and they have been signed off on meeting

than five years overdue…. That's probably not the right way of explaining it, but

as long as it's not more than five years since that test date, the regulator has to

assume and move forward with the credential recognition without any ability to question

I think this is a very important piece. The regulation largely sets out to streamline

that process. And as long as an applicant, on face value, can say, "Look, I've been

I'm not even sure of the word — "agency." So if a third-party agency has said, "As

far as we're concerned, you've met the standard," the regulator has to accept that

on face value. And that's part of the reason for streamlining. In any event, I certainly

appreciate the response from the minister.

Now, further in

section 7….

Section 4(2) of the act indicates that if there's a conflict

or inconsistency in respect of a relevant matter between the powers that are listed

section 4(2)(

a) through (

d) of this act and the regulatory authority outlined in

the various schedules of the act, the powers listed in

section 4(2)(

a) through (

d) of this act will prevail.

Furthermore, 7(2)(

a) of the act provides the superintendent with the authority to

"establish policies on best practices for regulatory authorities." So the superintendent

does have the authority to establish policies on best practices for regulatory authorities,

and I appreciate why that would be there. However, does the minister believe that

these facts somewhat contradict the following segment of

section 7(4) of the act,

which states: "…nothing in this

section limits the role of a regulatory authority

in respect of individuals who have been granted certification by the regulatory authority"?

I hope the minister might be able to unravel that and provide some better clarification.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'll just reiterate some of the previous answers I've given.

What this does is limit the scope here to the assessment process, in terms of considerations

for the assessment process.

This is getting ahead, into

section 17, but I briefly do want to provide some commentary

on the question that the member has asked about language tests. What this act will

do is…. It still allows the flexibility for regulators to make a determination on

have to be contracting out for a specific test with an agency. It could be occupation-specific

or what have you.

What it does say is…. Once they have done that assessment, that assessment is valid

for a five-year period of time. What that does is get away from the harm done in the

process, which I heard about, across the board, from international applicants, of

continually having to arbitrarily retest because expiry dates can be set for the test

by the regulator.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response. I'll certainly have some more questions when we get to

section 17.

With respect to the question that I raised…. I know there was a lot there.

So 7(2) of the act provides the superintendent with the authority…. It says to "establish

policies on best practices for regulatory authorities." That's fairly specific and

broad.

The minister has referenced that the reference is only to, I guess, maybe, the evaluation

of internationally trained foreign workers and their credential recognition. I don't

know that it so specifically spells that out. It could be interpreted, I believe….

I certainly stand to be corrected, if the minister believes differently. It could

be perceived to indicate that the superintendent has the authority to establish policies

and best practices for regulatory authorities outside of just the evaluation review

process.

That statement certainly does contradict the other

section that I referenced, 7(4),

which indicates that "nothing in this

section limits the role of a regulatory authority

in respect of individuals who have been granted certification by the regulatory authority."

I'm just hoping that the minister might either better clarify or, potentially, may

want to give consideration to adding additional clarification and maybe even an amendment

to the legislation. I do understand that even our conversation and scrutiny of this

bill will, hopefully, provide a bit better clarity should this come into question

in the future.

I'm hoping the minister can provide some clarity on that.

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity, the operation of

section 7…. So 7(1) sets out the primary responsibilities

of the superintendent.

And 7(2) says: "For the purposes of subsection (1)" — for the purpose of those responsibilities

— "the superintendent may do the following in relation to international credential

assessment processes." It specifically and clearly tags everything listed subordinate

to 7(2) as being for the purpose of the international credential assessment process.

I think it's very clear. I don't think the powers there could rationally or reasonably

be interpreted as going beyond the international credential process. It's very clearly

spelled out. If the superintendent attempted to do otherwise, they'd be in excess

of jurisdiction. It's very clearly spelled out in the act.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the confirmation or clarification from the minister. I guess that's the

benefit of being a former lawyer.

[4:50 p.m.]

Can the minister explain what is meant by the following segment from

section 8(3)

of this act where it states: "…must be considered by a regulatory authority in carrying

out its responsibilities under this Act"? I raise that with regard to the guidelines

that are established by the superintendent. And might the minister provide an example

of what that might be?

Hon. A. Mercier: For the member's benefit,

section 8(3), "Guidelines established under this

section

must be considered by a regulatory authority in carrying out its responsibilities

under this Act" means that the regulatory authorities must consider and operationalize

the guidelines that are established by the superintendent of international credential

recognition.

What that means and why that is, and I'll give an example…. The guidelines are going

to be, effectively, best practices and setting best practices. There are 18 regulatory

authorities under this act and 29 professions with a diversity of professional cultures

and a diversity of administrative structures as well.

How that is operationalized by all of them may differ. So that allows the flexibility

and the space for the superintendent to work with the regulators to implement the

guidelines — that they are prescriptive in terms of what they ought to be capturing

but not so overly prescriptive that they're not able to be made operational across

the board

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

The minister referenced that the changes of the act — that they must be considered

— and the minister inserted "and operationalized." That reference, "and operationalized,"

is not part of this section, so I'm just trying to better understand. I appreciate

the superintendent can make recommendations. They can make recommendations on establishing

best practices for the regulatory authorities.

The regulatory authorities have the requirement to consider recommendations, but I

don't see anything here that indicates they have to actually follow through with it.

You know, it's one thing to consider it and thank you for your suggestion and: "We've

considered it, and we've decided that we choose to go in a different direction."

I think, again, words matter. The minister in his response indicated it was not just

to consider but also consider and operationalize. The term "and operationalize" does

not exist, so I think it's important that the legislation clearly indicates what the

minister's expectation level is with respect to the authority of the superintendent

over the regulator on these matters.

Hon. A. Mercier: In terms of the operation of this provision, the guidelines must be considered. Like

I said before, the guidelines are going to be best practices that have a certain level

of generalization that allow them to be applicable across the board, a whole manner

of different processes.

Now, that being said, the clear expectation that we have as government and that the

superintendent of international credential recognition will have is that those guidelines

are considered, because they must be, and that they are operationalized. If the superintendent

of international credential recognition finds that they are not being operationalized

by a given profession or the progress is not where they would like it to be to come

into compliance with the act and the guidelines, the superintendent of international

credential recognition then has the ability to escalate that to ensure that they are

operationalized.

In particular — we're getting ahead, but they are linked — there are a variety of

administrative remedies in sections 30, 32 and 35 that are linked to the schedules,

and we had that conversation previously, to issue a directive. So for a certain schedule,

it's a directive of the superintendent. For the professions that have their own home

statutes, it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that may issue a directive.

In terms of the education to compliance model of enforcement, we set up the guidelines

and the expectations. There's the ability for the superintendent and their team to

work with the regulator, and if they are choosing to ignore the guidelines — which

I don't think the entities under this act will, but if they did — or if they're not

making the type of progress that we expect of them, there is the ability to issue

a directive and then to escalate from there.

G. Kyllo: I guess if it is the intent of the legislation for recommendations that come forward

by the superintendent, with respect to establishing policies and best practices for

the regulatory authorities, when it comes to the regulatory authority, I appreciate

that we can say that the recommendations must be considered, but the term "operationalized"

does not exist. I think that the term "consideration" could be interpreted very different

by different regulators.

[5:00 p.m.]

I think we can maybe wait until we get to the further

section that talks about what

the minister references about escalating from what the superintendent may see as non-compliance,

and the regulator may not perceive to be non-compliance. The regulator just may have

a different

interpretation. The regulator could certainly say: "Hey, great suggestion.

It might be valid for some regulators, but our

interpretation is that we do not agree.

We've considered it, and we've chosen to go in a different direction."

Should that conflict then arise, I guess, it is important for regulators to know where

that heavy hand is and what opportunities the superintendent will have to, as the

minister has indicated, escalate what will be perceived as non-compliance with the

direction or the wishes of the superintendent.

Now, it's a bit of a fine point between having independence of the regulator to make

their own determination…. I'm not in any way trying to indicate that there are any

games being played here, but I do believe it is incredibly important — for not just

the general public but, most importantly, the regulators — to have a very clear understanding

what this legislation means.

If the superintendent determines to put forward a best-practices recommendation to

a regulator, and if the regulator shall carry forward and implement it or be subject

to further escalation and potential penalties, that's crossing the boundary where

suddenly the superintendent may have some legal implications with respect to any challenges

that may arise from that.

I think that the minister has talked about the need for indemnifying the superintendent

and making that clear line. This, however, is one area where I think it's important

for the regulator to have clear knowledge that they can consider it and choose to

ignore it. Should they choose to ignore it, if they're going to be subject to further

escalation or penalties, well, they don't really have the choice. We may find that

that has crossed a line. I'm certainly not a lawyer. I will look forward to a response

from the minister.

Hon. A. Mercier: To be clear, in presaging later clauses in this bill, it is not going to be up to

an individual regulatory authority to make the decision to ignore the act based on

their individual

interpretation of a provision. The later administrative sections

are very clear that powers to issue directives flow from the superintendent determining

that an authority is not complying with matters listed in relevant sections.

We can get into the particulars of those later on. The determination is with the superintendent.

In compliance with the act, they are superintending the act and the regulators. That's,

I think, an incredibly important point.

On the more discrete point of the guidelines, they must be considered: "must" is mandatory

language. They have to consider those guidelines, and they have to, in doing that,

work with the superintendent of international credential recognition on this, just

by the function of the act and by the powers with which the superintendent is imbued.

They have power to ensure compliance with the act.

A regulator choosing to ignore the guidelines is a different consideration than if

a regulator says: "Hey, we're one of 18 regulatory authorities, regulating one of

29 professions under this act, and there are some unique considerations here, when

we look to operationalize these guidelines." Well, then that's a conversation that

those two parties, the superintendent and the regulator, are able to have. It gives

that flexibility to do that.

I mean, I think the compliance and enforcement provisions in this act — I'm happy

as we get later on into the provisions to discuss them — are very clear on where and

how determinations are made.

[5:05 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: With respect to subsection 8(3), it indicates that the guidelines created by the superintendent

under the act, I believe, are for consideration.

Now, the minister keeps indicating that they must be operationalized — I don't see

the language here — and that it is up to the regulatory authority to make their own

consideration, and, as the minister has suggested, potentially engage in a conversation

with the superintendent, believing that carve-outs may be required for that specific

subset of professions under their purview.

Should there be an unwillingness to have a meeting of the minds, it's my understanding,

from what the minister has indicated, that the superintendent will have the authority

to take enforcement action and, potentially, levy fines against the regulator. I just

want to be clear if that is exactly what the minister believes is the authority of

the superintendent under this act. I believe that some regulators may not be necessarily

100 percent on board with that

interpretation.

Hon. A. Mercier: This is about making sure that the act is administered in an efficacious and realistic

way. The regulatory authorities must consider the guidelines. A good example of where

a guideline may not make sense is if a general guideline is put into place around

language testing, and a particular regulator doesn't do language testing or doesn't

require it, or something to that effect. It provides the space to allow for that.

It also provides the space for a regulator to come back to the superintendent to say,

"Hey, we have a different way of doing one of the prescribed matters from the guidelines,"

or any other part of the legislation, "and here is what it is." The superintendent

may say that that is a good way of operationalizing something within their context.

The act is very clear:

section 27 of the act gives power to the superintendent of

international credential recognition, to conduct inspections, to ensure monitoring

and compliance with, among other things, the provisions in division 2 — of which these

guidelines that we're discussing are a provision.

[5:10 p.m.]

That inspection ensures that they're not just making it up on a whim but that there's

a process they go through to ensure that it's being complied with. If the superintendent

of international credential recognition makes the determination that division 2 is

not being complied with and that the guidelines are not being complied with — the

guidelines are effectively not being considered, or the reasons for their non-implementation

don't pass the level of sensibility — then the superintendent has the ability, in

the case of certain professions, to issue a directive.

In the case of other professions — this goes to the conversation about schedules —

it has to go through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That is an important part

of the compliance structure of this act and is the first step in escalation to getting

towards compliance.

That superintendent functions within all the rules and parameters that apply to a

statutory decision–maker: of acting in good faith and being non-arbitrary when they're

doing it. We need to ensure compliance with the act, because what this is about is

removing barriers for internationally trained professionals and getting more folks

through. That determination of compliance is a determination made by the superintendent

after monitoring and compliance inspections and enforcement activities around things

like the guidelines.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister's response. This is largely about expediting, as the minister

has indicated, the recognition of international credentials. It will be the superintendent's

obligation and authority to establish best practices. Some of those best practices

that may be recommended may likely — and, in all likelihood, will — have cost implications

to the regulator. Would I be correct in understanding, both in interpreting the legislation

and in some of the conversation I've had with the minister…?

Should the superintendent determine, in order to affect the legislation about expediting

the recognition of international credentials for professionals, that in doing that,

there may be cost implications passed on to the regulator — maybe there'd be a ratio;

you'd have to have a minimum number of individuals working on a file, based on the

number of applicants that are before the regulatory authority — does the superintendent

have the authority to put cost implications on the regulator?

Hon. A. Mercier: The costs of complying with the act are costs that are borne by the regulatory authorities.

But there are costs that we're here as government to help with, through the credential

assessment improvement fund, which is a direct funding mechanism, but also through

leveraging the expertise of the office of the superintendent of professional governance

— which has experience in dealing with processes within regulatory bodies and in finding

more efficient ways of doing things.

[5:15 p.m.]

Not all regulators are the same; some of them function with a lot more staff than

others and deal with higher volumes of applicants than others. Some of them need more

help than others. What we've done here is we've built an approach that allows for

that diversity, and I anticipate that the credential assessment improvement fund and

the expertise of the OSPG are going to be critical parts of that.

G. Kyllo: As we look to the opportunity, I guess, for the superintendent to establish those

best practices, has any work been undertaken over the last year with those eight FTEs

to have a look at, internationally, other jurisdictions that may have already tackled

this challenge? I'm sure that the challenges we may have here in B.C. are not unique.

It's probably been experienced across Canada and maybe in other parts of the world.

I do appreciate that maybe that final best practices may not come out until there's

a superintendent, but has any work been undertaken around what those best practices

might look like? Has any of that information been shared with the regulatory authorities,

and has there been any feedback obtained at this point?

Hon. A. Mercier: I'll answer the question in two parts, and I'll answer it backwards. First, I'll talk

about the credential recognition branch within the government and those eight FTEs

and the work that they've been doing. They do stay plugged in pretty closely to what's

going on with credential recognition across the Commonwealth countries and jurisdictions.

They facilitate a meeting quarterly of the regulators here in British Columbia to

look at best practices and to facilitate that work. That's part of the work that feeds

into proposed guidelines. But as well, that informed the basis of this act — that

cross-jurisdictional comparison — and in some ways, there is a difficulty in doing

the international comparison, because it's regulated differently than it is in Canada

in other Commonwealth countries.

For instance, the United Kingdom is a unitary state. It's not a federal body. Australia

is federal, but all of this is regulated at the national level.

Whereas in Canada,

we have a system where immigration is federal, but the credential recognition process,

which is really married with the immigration process in a lot of ways, falls to the

provincial level.

We looked across the board at best practices in informing the act so that we have

the strongest basket of measures that we could have in this act across the board,

looking at our other nine provinces.

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

We talked about some of those barriers, and certainly this legislation is about expediting

the recognition of those internationally trained professionals. I would assume that

part of the concern that would have likely come forward as part of the consultative

process is the cost magnitude, the amount of cost it actually takes for an individual

to approach a regulatory body to actually provide not only the information necessary

for the review, but potentially even the fees associated with it.

[5:20 p.m.]

Would the minister agree that part of the best practices that might be implemented

certainly could include a consideration of potentially reduced fees or fees that may

be more in line with other countries as part of that consideration? Would the superintendent

have the ability to make recommendations, which we now understand are not just for

their consideration but for them to consider and operationalize, with respect to the

fees they charge for the application for international recognition?

Hon. A. Mercier:

Section 18 of the act deals with prohibited fees and sets out a range of authorities

in relation to fees for international applicants.

In a nutshell, what it's about is ensuring that regulators are able to properly expense

fees to applicants that reflect the work being done but not to go beyond that. It's

not looked at as, not that I'm saying regulators would…. For instance, it's not looked

at as a profit centre or something like that. The fees are there to reasonably cover

the actual administration of the applications.

Section 18 of the act very specifically

deals with that.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that those fees are specifically set out. What I'm trying to better understand

is….

As far as the superintendent's ability to establish best practices…. It would certainly

be my

interpretation that a best practice could be to establish a fee

schedule that

would be, maybe, commensurate with other jurisdictions. Best practices could include,

with respect to any testing that might be required…. I've certainly heard that, in

some instances, there is a requirement…. The testing actually has to be conducted

on Canadian soil. Those tests can't be undertaken by an international university abroad.

Not all applicants looking for recognition of their international professional recognition

are situated within British Columbia or in Canada. Some may be applying from abroad

— from the U.K., for example.

I'm just trying to get a bit of a sense. Would the superintendent have the ability

and authority with respect to any testing requirements…? If a regulator determined

that the testing could only be done at their facility…? It could only be done here

in British Columbia. You don't have the ability to go to a university in the U.K.

to take that testing. If the superintendent was to determine there'd be considerable

savings…? I think we would all agree that not having to fly over to do a test and

fly back home again….

I'm not saying that the superintendent would. But would that be something that the

superintendent would have the ability to say to a regulator? As long as there's a

university with the competencies to have that test taken abroad to save that individual

travel, could that be a consideration for the superintendent? Could the superintendent

then impose that — it's not just a consideration — on a regulator, which provides

significant cost relief to the international professional?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I'll start with the caveat that the superintendent of international credential recognition

can't operate their powers in a way so as to reach into and undermine or interfere

with the integrity of the substantive requirements for what it takes to be regulated.

So what competencies are assessed and how they're assessed.

Now, that being said, this is about streamlining process and finding those processes

that make sense and that reduce the timeline and that remove those unnecessary barriers.

In the example that the member has given…. There is a regulatory authority that is

using a school which has a whole ton of additional expenses for going to and, all

things being equal, a comparable institution that is local. It doesn't require travel.

I mean, to me, that would be something that could be addressed through the guidelines.

There's also the authority, under this act, to set out regulations specifically around

language testing, under clause 17, and around fees, under clause 18.

I would submit to the member that the more reasoned way to approach would be the way

he would be suggesting. Put the guidelines in place. Work with the regulators to find

out and get some experience, where the rubber hits the road, with how those guidelines

can be operationalized in their given context. If there are broader issues that stem

from that, there is still the power, then, to sort it out through regulation.

The idea here is to find efficacious ways to administer the process and share best

practices, which, rightly, are an evolving interplay between the regulators and the

superintendent of international credential recognition, while not being overly prescriptive

and recognizing their differences.

That is, yes, something possible, with the caveat that the superintendent cannot undermine

the substantive integrity of the assessment itself.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response.

The superintendent would have the ability to make that as a recommendation as far

as best practices, as long as the regulator would not necessarily lose their ability

to have the integrity of that testing, in any way, demised.

[5:30 p.m.]

These questions are important. Some have been posed to me by regulators. So I'm just

looking for a bit of extra clarity.

As we start looking at what best practices are, there are obviously many opportunities

for other regulators — including SkilledTradesBC, as an example — to provide opportunities

for internationally trained workers to have their testing done in their home country

and not be forced to fly all the way to B.C. to conduct a test on Canadian soil. Potentially,

if they don't pass the test, not only do they have the travel and hotel accommodation.

Now they've got to fly all the way back home and then get, maybe, a refresher done

before they've got to fly back again for another test.

There are certainly things that could be done within government right now, especially

around SkilledTradesBC, that would help to expedite the recognition of internationally

trained workers. An ironworker that might be situated in Ireland has an opportunity.

We have a shortage here, and there's an opportunity to come to work. That individual

has to pay considerable expense of flying all the way to Canada, staying in a hotel,

undertaking the test. If they're unsuccessful in passing the test, they've got to

go all the way back to Ireland, get a refresher, and then they've got to come back

a second time.

As much as we're looking for best practices that might exist with other regulators,

I do believe this is a great opportunity for the minister to do some navel-gazing,

to have a look at opportunities that exist within his own portfolio on how we could

reduce the cost barrier for international skilled trades workers on other parts of

the planet, to expedite their opportunity to have their credentials recognized and

come and find employment in B.C. to help us tackle the extreme skilled trades shortage

that we have in the province right now.

I certainly appreciate government's efforts to look to others and to try and implement

best practices for them. But I would certainly also encourage the minister to have

a look internally within organizations that are under his own direct control or within

the Ministry of Advanced Education for opportunities that exist for reducing those

same barriers which we're potentially looking to remedy here with Bill 38.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain what is meant by the following segment from

section 9(1)

of this act, which states, "make rules respecting practice and procedure for matters

coming before the superintendent," and provide an example?

Hon. A. Mercier: This provides authority to the superintendent to make rules concerning practice and

procedure, everything from ensuring that there is policy for how an audit or inspection

is conducted to complaints coming before the superintendent. It gives them formally

and authorizes them to set out those rules for clarity for everyone involved.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

G. Kyllo: What other limitations or circumstances in addition to

section 10 (2) of this act

would compel the superintendent to abstain from making the information outlined in

section 10(1)(

a) through (

d) of this act available to the public? Might the minister

provide an example of what that might be?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This

section of the act, 10(2), is all about ensuring that the data collection is

done in conformity with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act —

namely, that the purpose of the superintendent collecting data is systemic in nature

and not linked to…. When the superintendent goes to collect data, they're going to

potentially come across sensitive personal or private information, and this limits

their use of that so that folks' privacy is protected and the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act is complied with. The point of the data collection is

purely systemic.

G. Kyllo: Would the superintendent be obliged to consult with the freedom-of-information and

protection office in order to ensure that they may not be overzealous with their retention

of data and what might be actually shared with the public?

Hon. A. Mercier: To be clear, what this provision is about isn't about the use of the information;

it's about publishing that information online.

What the ministry would do is a program privacy impact assessment with the ministry's

privacy officer, as well as the government's information officer, in terms of the

collection and use of the data. But really, and this is of point I made previously,

this is about looking at the systemic, meta level of the data and what it's telling

us about the application process. That does sometimes have intersections with things

that are personal. But the prohibition here is against publishing personal private

information under that act to the superintendent's website.

[5:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Can the minister indicate why there is not an obligation or requirement for annual

publishing of the different data and metrics of all of the different regulatory authorities?

I know that at the outset of the legislation, we talked a bit about if you can't measure

it, you certainly can't manage it, and it's really important to have proper documentation

with respect to how many foreign professionals may be in the queue, even seeking to

have their credentials recognized. What's the longest lead time? What's the shortest

lead time?

I think it's really, incredibly important that at least at the outset, we have an

understanding of what the size and magnitude of the problem is with the regulators.

The minister has indicated it's taking far too long for internationally trained professionals

to have their credentials recognized in B.C. The focus of the legislation is about

expediting that process, so I think it's incredibly important that the most important,

I guess, focus of the superintendent would be to be able to tell and share with British

Columbians that these efforts are actually having a positive result.

I'm wondering if the minister can share where in the legislation that absolute requirement

is for the superintendent to clearly articulate the size of the problem, minimum times

for credential recognition, maximum times, and then what the annual reporting of that

data might be so that a year or two from now, we can hopefully have some semblance

that all of this was valuable and we had some positive results.

Hon. A. Mercier: What

section 10 does is gives the superintendent the authority to publish information

relating to the annual reports the regulatory authority is required to submit under

section 20 to its website, but what the next

section —

section 11 — does is sets out

a requirement that no later than May 31, the superintendent must submit an annual

report on their activities to the minister, and the minister must then make that report

public. So there will be a report that is public about the activities of the superintendent.

It'll be an annual report, and I would submit that that's, in terms of understanding,

I think, a more effective way to look at it, as opposed to publishing 18 individual

reports. Although if the superintendent does want to publish individual reports on

the website, they can, but they must submit and publish an annual report for public

scrutiny.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that

section 10 does have the requirement for tabling a report identifying

activities, but activities…. Although they may lead to results, the results are really

what matters. I fail to see anywhere in the legislation anything that clearly sets

out or articulates a requirement to actually publish annually the magnitude of the

challenge.

This legislation is here because individuals have indicated that it's taking far too

long, and there are too many obstacles, cost barriers or otherwise, to have their

international professional credentials recognized here in B.C. Eighteen regulators

have been identified with having jurisdiction over 29 professions. This whole legislation

is about getting results for those individuals, yet I don't see anything with any

of this legislation that requires or sets out a requirement for the superintendent

to report out on any of those issues.

I raised the concern in second reading. I raised the concern at the outset of the

legislation. How will the minister be able to confidently share with British Columbians,

a year from now, that there have been improvements to the system? If we don't know

what the magnitude of the challenge is now….

There's been no data collection to determine how many individuals are actually sitting

on the dockets of these 18 different regulators. How will we know we're successful?

I think that British Columbians want to see results.

[5:45 p.m.]

I'm hoping that the minister can in some way point to some place in the legislation

that clearly sets out and gives confidence to British Columbians that that information

will be made public at the outset of the work of the superintendent and that there

will be subsequent reporting out so that we can actually have a look at the magnitude

of the problem, whether the problem is continuing to escalate and get worse or whether

the problem and the efforts of the superintendent is having a benefit to many of these

internationally trained professionals. I think that that is what British Columbians

are looking for — results.

Again, if we're not measuring it, if the superintendent is not required or obligated

to report out, a list of activities is not necessarily what we're looking at with

respect to the legislation.

Hon. A. Mercier: This legislation is incredibly strong when it comes to transparency requirements and

communication. In particular,

section 19 of the act sets out an obligation on regulatory

authorities to make information available on their websites. This is something I heard

about a lot in engagement from internationally trained professionals. A lot of international

professionals told me that they can't figure out head from tails of what they have

to do for the process based on the publicly available information.

Section 19 requires, among other things, information about the length of time that

it takes, or usually takes, to make a determination, for instance, and to have those

data reporting requirements that the regulators have to publish in reports on their

own website.

We've gone even further than that, and we've said under

section 10 that the superintendent

may publish those, or information it gains during processes around that, on its website.

In addition to that, the office of the superintendent, which will be a serious and

professional office of the provincial government, must submit an annual report on

their activities. The intent of that report is to ensure transparency and efficiency

and fairness within the process.

The intent is to report out on data as it relates to the process. But make no mistake,

that obligation is also strictly on the regulatory authorities to do it themselves

as well. I mean, the superintendent could link to all of that. I've heard a lot from

a lot of folks with international credentials about what a mess a lot of regulatory

websites are to navigate.

I think that having everything in a one-stop shop is probably a better way to do it.

These are very strong requirements in terms of publication.

G. Kyllo: The legislation is absolutely silent with respect to identifying the magnitude of

the problem, the backlog that exists within the 18 different regulatory bodies. It

is absolutely silent with respect to the mandatory reporting requirement by either

the regulator or the superintendent with respect to the average lead time, what the

shortest lead time might be for the recognition of international credentials. What's

the shortest lead time possible? Just how many people are even in the queue?

I honestly…. With all due respect, I have trouble understanding how we will, in any

way, shape or form, be able to make a determination that we've actually improved this

system if there's nothing set out in the legislation that even, at the minimum, requires

the superintendent to identify at the outset of his or her term in office, once they

get hired — to require the regulatory authorities to even divulge and to share how

many people are currently in queue looking for your international professional credential

to be recognized in B.C.

I don't see that anywhere. There's no obligation for the superintendent to report

out annually on it, nor the minister, ministry's office to actually report out on

it.

If I've missed something that gives very specific language and the requirement, I

hope the minister can point me to it, but I believe that this is an incredibly important

piece that appears to have been overlooked in the legislation.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: We've canvassed data requirements and the need for it. We're in agreement on the need

to base-line data pretty significantly already, both in second reading and in committee

stage.

I'll repeat some of what I've said previously, which is that there's a variety of

regulators with a variety of abilities. Some of them are going to need to lead IT

projects in order to come into a position where they're able to appropriately collect

data. I conveyed a story to the member previously about how I was told by one regulatory

authority — who, in fairness, because we're going to be working with them, I won't

name right here in this debate — who told me point-blank that they don't track that

data from incoming applicants.

Those are in terms of baselining for performance in year one. We need to get that

data collection up and off the ground.

We're getting ahead of ourselves in terms of the act and the provisions on the tools

to do that with the specific regulatory authorities. But I would submit that the requirement

for an annual report from the superintendent that has to be made public, in addition

to the requirement that the regulators make their own annual reports that have to

be made public, is an incredibly powerful step.

And I would refer the member to the recent report by the office of the superintendent

of professional governance for an indication of what could be expected from an annual

report from the superintendent of international credential recognition. The OSPG is

building a track record of very strong, data-informed reporting that will be continued,

should this act be passed and become law.

G. Kyllo: There will be, certainly, more opportunity to continue to have conversation on the,

I guess, sheer absence of the requirement of establishing and monitoring and reporting

out on the data that would, hopefully, inform future decisions around either the success

or failure of the work of the superintendent.

The minister references, I believe he just stated, a general agreement with the need

and necessity for establishing the baseline data. Well, if indeed that is the case,

why is the legislation silent on it? I see no requirement anywhere in the legislation

that even the establishment of the baseline data would be the first effort of business

of the superintendent.

If a regulator currently, as the minister has indicated, doesn't even know how many

internationally trained professionals have reached out to their organization for even

consideration, that is very surprising, but I don't imagine it would be that monumental

a task. Are we talking tens in a year? Are we talking hundreds? Are we talking thousands?

The legislation is put in place and brought to us for debate and consideration because

there's a perceived problem that it is taking far too long for internationally trained

professionals to have their credentials recognized in B.C. I'm supportive of the efforts

of government to try and do anything we can to try and expedite that. That is what

the legislation is set out to do. But it is paramount that we understand the magnitude

of the problem before us.

[5:55 p.m.]

Did the regulators not actually know how many individuals have actually reached out

and maybe even inquired within the last year for that consideration? I appreciate

that that establishment of baseline data, that there may need to be some work done

just to clearly articulate and determine what we're measuring. A general inquiry from

somebody from a foreign country that is considering moving to B.C., I would suggest,

probably wouldn't count.

Maybe you only start counting on those internationally trained professionals for their

request at a certain point in time –– maybe once they actually have immigration status

and can actually come to British Columbia. Maybe you might want to be tracking only

those that are actually already landed here in British Columbia and, as the minister

has shared in many examples, driving taxi cabs or working in restaurants. Maybe those

are the individuals that are measured.

It's going to be incredibly important for that data to be determined and established

maybe within the first two or three months. I'm surprised if that hasn't already been

established now, but maybe it has. I'll give the minister an opportunity to respond.

The first action for a superintendent, I would suggest, would be clearly that — what

are we going to measure? How are we going to measure it?

And at what point are we going to start making it a requirement of the regulators

to provide that information back to the superintendent in real time? Not once a year.

Certainly, it could be monthly so that, actually, the superintendent would have a

pretty good indication if there's been a surge in applications for specific professions.

But the legislation is silent on it.

Data drives decisions. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. My nervousness

is that we will see a report come out next year talking about all the activities of

the office, and nobody will know whether all of this effort was for any value to British

Columbia in achieving the absolute goal, which is to expedite the recognition of internationally

trained professionals.

I'm certainly not finished talking about that concern. It will come up in various

sections going forward, but I'll maybe give the opportunity for the minister to provide

a response if he has anything else further to share.

Hon. A. Mercier: I think that we have a very clear problem here, which is that this was an issue that

went unaddressed for decades and that we've been taking action on since we came into

government.

You could look at and canvass the actions we've taken since forming government in

2017. What did we do in 2019? We formed the credential assessment improvement fund,

which is a fund there to help regulators build out their systems so that they can

improve the international credential process for applicants.

We introduced the Health Professions and Occupations Act to begin this process and

continue it in health care, where we've seen real gains. Then we've done the work

and all of the engagement to address this issue and this problem here. It's simply

not true to say this legislation is silent on collecting information from regulatory

authorities on their processes or on reporting those out.

As I've just previously canvassed, there is a direct obligation in here in the act

in subsequent sections for regulatory authorities to collect information, including

information prescribed by regulation and to report it annually on their websites.

The point that the member seems to be making is that this whole process is a failure

if the superintendent of international credential recognition doesn't duplicate all

of those reports on its own website and instead has an overall annual report of the

process, which then allows them to compare things across the board.

We take this issue incredibly seriously, which is why we've been doing the work. I

think it's a good thing that we're in government to do this work, because it wasn't

being done to this standard before. The value in this…. To go back to the commentary

here that the act is silent on this, it's not.

The value here is that we are able to, through the superintendent and through the

process of regulation, make determinations about how everyone is measuring everything

as well and set those standards and evolve those standards where we start to see problems

as opposed to enumerating every single data point prescriptively in the act that we

want collected and cutting it off, which would freeze data collection in time and

then require an amendment to deal with the simple operation of the superintendent

if we make a determination that we have a real problem in a certain area and we want

an extra data point.

[6:00 p.m.]

This act allows for all of that, and the intention is to administer it in that way.

Further to that, it requires publication by each regulator on their websites of an

annual report detailing these issues.

I mean, I would submit, Chair, that the comments of the member, with the greatest

respect, on that point are simply off base.

G. Kyllo: I think that is deserving of a bit of a response.

Look, I have no quarrel with the minister. The legislation is absolutely silent with

respect to identifying the magnitude of the problem that currently exists. The consultation

did not identify the number of internationally trained professionals that are currently

sitting and have engaged with any of the 18 different regulators for the 29 different

professions.

We have no numbers. No numbers have been provided as far as how big the problem is.

Are we talking about ten engineers, or are we talking about 200 engineers? I have

no idea. I don't know if that was even a question that was actually asked of the different

regulators. If it was, I think it would be fantastic to have those numbers.

As we look to going forward, I believe it is absolutely imperative that the superintendent

has the responsibility and requirement to report out on any incremental improvements

or deterioration of the number of internationally trained professionals that are actually

sitting in queue at the regulator's desk looking for their credentials to be recognized.

I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to ensure that that happens.

Now, to say that the superintendent could report out on it…. I don't think that's

good enough. I think that British Columbians are going to want to know that…. Look,

there's time and energy affected. There's an understood problem. I have no quarrel

with the legislation. It's needed. Whether this is the appropriate vehicle to achieve

that, I'm having some concerns.

If all we're going to do is report out on activities and money spent in FTEs, well,

how do we know we're actually getting any results? There are efforts that the minister

has, or the ministry certainly has, with respect to expediting the recognition of

credentials for skilled-trades workers in other parts of the planet. But those efforts

may not necessarily be getting the attention deserving of those internationally trained

skilled workers.

I think there'll be opportunity to delve in a bit more. I think we've exhausted this

section well enough. However, it is important to recognize that there is nothing set

out in this legislation that requires or compels the superintendent to provide specific

data as far as the number of individuals, of foreign internationally trained professionals,

that are awaiting at various stages of having their credentials recognized. Nor have

we even set out by what metric we might actually be even measuring those individuals.

With that, thank you.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

On clause 12.

G. Kyllo: I actually had jumped ahead to this question. This was my first question off the top,

so I appreciate the response provided.

As a follow-up to that response that the minister had provided — I know it was a number

of hours ago — could the minister explain what is meant specifically by

section 12(b)(

i) through (iv) of this act and just provide an example? I'm just trying to understand

what specifically the minister is trying to reference here.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: I appreciate the question.

These are a list of objectives from the Canadian free trade agreement as among provinces

of legitimate objectives of professional regulators and labour mobility. It speaks

to the importance of having certification requirements that are linked to the regulator's

mandate to protect and promote the public interest, because ultimately, the rationale

for professional regulation is the promotion and protection of the public interest.

Think of veterinarians with animals. As well, safety, health and welfare of the public

will come out in a whole variety of different ways, environment in a whole variety

of different ways. Think just engineers, many of the natural resource professions

that are listed under this act. That's what this is a reflection of.

G. Kyllo: I'm assuming the language must have come from somewhere and not dreamt up.

Just for those listening at home, the references to safety, health and welfare of

the public, the environment, animal or plant life or