Overall Response

1. Protecting the public and serving the public interest is the primary role of a self-regulatory body.

Member Comments:

a) APEGBC currently protects the public and the public interest by:

• Setting and monitoring standards, and encouraging high levels of competence and excellence
• Ensuring only qualified professionals practice

b) What does "protecting the public" and "serving the public interest" mean for APEGBC?

c) This may not be the primary role of APEGBC. Although this is a foundational concept, it may be a consequence of regulating the professions rather than an end goal.  The public interest will be served if members' interests are served, and there should be a balance maintained between the two.

2. Should APEGBC be more proactive in protecting the public and serving the public interest?

Member Comments:

a) Protecting the public interest is of concern to many groups.  Government, lawyers, and the marketplace should serve the public interest, but APEGBC should work collaboratively with these groups to represent the professions of engineering and geoscience and confirm our mandate is being served.

b) We need to be more proactive: reviewing our public safety mandate and our current processes will help the public understand our dedication to safety, and anticipating and responding to current issues may lessen negative media attention.

c) APEGBC needs to work with other associations to enforce exclusive right to practice.  This would clarify workplace processes (especially with respect to competence and safety) and would benefit the image of professional engineering and professional geoscience.

3. Are practice guidelines and standards important to the self-regulation of the professions?

a) APEGBC should develop new guidelines and standards on a priority basis, as needed.  Processes should be in place to keep guidelines and standards current, and to communicate and promote them to members, employers, clients, industry, and the public.  Guidelines and standards should not be overly prescriptive; instead, they should address the skill sets required to carry out a particular professional activity.

b) Guidelines and standards should clearly indicate to members how their obligations under the Act, Bylaws, and Code of Ethics are met when carrying out the professional activity described in the guideline or standard; however, they must allow the member to exercise discretion and judgment.

4. Does APEGBC have the necessary guidelines and practice standards in place to guide members when needed?

Member Comments:

a) Current guidelines and standards focus on consulting services, especially for engineering related to building projects.  More guidelines and standards are needed for members practicing in government, manufacturing, computer, software, and chemical sectors.

b) As well as reinforcing high professional and ethical standards, guidelines and standards should also address requirements for documentation (including level of detail and required information), quality management procedures, and peer review.  These same requirements should be used to determine the minimum cost to clients.

c) Members should be made aware of all standards and guidelines that they are expected to comply with (including non- APEGBC codes), and should understand how they are used in quality assurance checks or investigations.  Guidelines and standards should be developed without increasing bureaucracy or member liability.

5. Should undertaking professional development activities be mandatory for professional engineers and geoscientists in BC?

Member Comments:

a) Professional development does not equal competence.  Continuing competence occurs automatically as professional fields continue to change, and members maintain their due diligence by learning new codes and techniques on the job and in the field.

b) Professional development activities are already mandatory within the Code of Ethics, but any professional development requirements should reflect public risk. APEGBC should study the approach taken in Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.  While continuing competence is necessary for employment or survival in the marketplace, it is not necessarily connected to continuing professional development (CPD).  CPD does not replace a responsible, safety-conscious professional who practices within their level of competency.

c) Yes, but CPD at APEGBC does not reflect the varied practice of APEGBC members.  The courses have a narrow focus, are concentrated in the lower mainland, and lack a link to public safety.  Employers will seldom grant time off to attend daylong courses, so members need more input into what constitutes CPD, and more flexibility, especially for online learning.  Informal as well as formal courses need to be accepted.

6. Should reporting professional development activities be mandatory for professional engineers and geoscientists in BC?

Member Comments:

a) Members must have an active role in self-regulation, so APEGBC needs to reassess the emphasis and key features of the CPD program before it can become mandatory.  The link between public safety and competence needs to be demonstrated to justify mandatory reporting.

b) Mandatory reporting is acceptable if the program allows for self-directed learning that meets specific criteria, and a wider variety of learning methods.  If the program is not adapted this way, members will have to deal with administrative, financial, and liability burdens.

c) Yes, if it can be done efficiently.

7. Is Practice Review an important tool in quality assurance?

Member Comments:

a) Practice review must be identified and communicated as a learning program to improve member practice rather than a disciplinary process.  APEGBC must convey to its members and the public that practice reviews are an audit of a member's practice, and are part of APEGBC's quality assurance program - they are not an investigation of wrongdoing by a member.

b) Practice reviews should follow a coaching model, providing scope of the review, audit tools, and checklists in advance, and allowing the member to improve without punishment or entry on the public record.  Impacts of workplace culture on a member's performance should also be taken into account.

c) Only high risk areas of practice should be subject to practice review.

d) Practice reviews should focus on firms that do not have quality assurance practices in place and on members that practice within high-risk or problematic areas.  They should also recognize that many members only supervise or manage practicing engineers or geoscientists.

e) Not in favour of Association-initiated practice review but support concept of member-initiated peer review.

8. Is a risk-based approach to practice review appropriate for use by APEGBC?

Member Comments:

a) "Risk" needs to be defined.  APEGBC should recognize that risk is affected by workplace factors.

b) A risk-based approach should consider the nature of the hazard, consequences of failure, and the processes and procedures that are in place to guard against failure.

c) Practice reviews should not be limited to high-risk areas.  A low-risk problem can become a high-risk problem if it is ignored.  APEGBC should take a combined-risk approach to practice reviews and should include some random selection as well.

9. Are alternative forms of practice review, such as relying upon APEGBC approved corporate quality management systems, worthy of examination?

Member Comments:

a) Alternative approaches should be investigated only if they are related to quality assurance (rather than policing), and should be discussed with members.  Guidelines are needed for quality management and practice review.

b) APEGBC approved corporate quality management system should only be considered if there is clear evidence that the current self-regulatory practices of APEGBC are not sufficient to adequately protect public health and safety.  Everyone should be measured against the same uniform standard.

c) Any system must be fair, flexible, and relevant to all organizational sizes, including sole practitioners.  APEGBC should recognize existing organizational quality management systems, and should allow organizations to have input into tailoring a quality management system to suit their needs.

d) Engineering and geoscience companies should be responsible for embedding professional practices in their business processes, especially when senior management lacks a professional engineering or geoscience background.

10. Is APEGBC responding adequately to investigation and discipline, given the challenges today?

Member Comments:

a) Other than reporting findings in Innovation, the investigation and discipline processes seem closed to members and the public, with unclear rules.  The criteria for panel selection seems arbitrary at times, and should be reviewed.  It is difficult to measure the public's trust in our system; when many complaints don't go forward or are dismissed, the public interest may be affected.

b) It is unclear how investigation and discipline, practice standards and guidelines, and public protection are linked.  The current process is improving, but would benefit from separating major and minor cases and using a quality assurance approach to complaints, when appropriate.

c) Members should be expected to comply with standards, guidelines, and the Code of Ethics.  Investigation and discipline should be avenues for improving the professions, and should therefore be tied to learning, performance improvement, and quality assurance.  The Code of Ethics should clarify whether members are required to report noncompliance, but this should not involve expensive legal review.  Any changes to the investigation and discipline process should not increase liability for members.

d) APEGBC should investigate alternative dispute resolutions.