Several British Columbia engineering and technical associations, whose members act as qualified professionals on project reviews, are warily assessing a provincial government report on the future role of consultants.
The BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change recently released a report of the review of professional reliance in the natural resource sector.
Although some of their members work in natural resources, the organizations are concerned some of the report’s recommendations could also be applied to professionals working in other fields, such as construction.
The Final Report of the Review of Professional Reliance in Natural Resource Decision-Making covers five professional regulators in the province:
- Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of BC (ASTTBC);
- Association of BC Forest Professionals;
- BC Institute of Agrologists;
- College of Applied Biology; and
- Engineers and Geoscientists of BC.
Following the release of the report in late June, discussions have been taking place between the government and the affected regulators.
In the fall, after the consultations, the government intends to implement what it calls “tangible changes” to governance of the affected regulators.
Work on the review began in October 2017, several months after the NDP, with the co-operation of the Green Party, replaced the Liberals, which had been in power since 2001.
In 2001-2002, the Liberal government had conducted a cost-cutting core services review, part of which involved introducing a system of professional reliance.
In simple terms, professional reliance is a regulatory model in which government sets the natural resource management objectives or results to be achieved. Professionals hired by project proponents decide how those objectives or results will be met and government checks to ensure objectives have been achieved.
I would caution government against reacting too quickly
— Theresa McCurry
Applied Science Technologists & Technicians of BC
The report, prepared by University of Victoria law professor Mark Haddock, noted in the past few years there have been examples of “significant gaps” in professional reliance models of regulation, such as the breach of the Mount Polley tailings pond.
Haddock wrote the government’s review was a response to “a clear need to strengthen the professional reliance model.”
The report made two major recommendations: That government establish an Office of Professional Regulation and Oversight that would be an agent of government, independent from the natural resource sector ministries and focused on professional governance issues; and that government standardize 10 elements of professional governance through umbrella legislation, including a new power to regulate firms, improve council authority to pass certain bylaws, require continuing professional development and clarify public interest duties.
Reaction to the report was swift and to the point.
In a written statement, Engineers and Geoscientists BC said, “We are concerned that the creation of a new Office of Professional Regulation and Oversight would add cost as well as an additional layer between government and practicing professionals without a clear indication of how it would improve the regulatory model.
“It is our view that the regulatory improvements included in the report can be achieved through amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, without creating a new level of potentially costly administration. Furthermore, we are concerned that the model proposed in the report does not account for the varied size and complexity of regulators.
“For instance, in the case of Engineers and Geoscientists BC, where only 20 per cent of our members work in the natural resource sector, how would such a body regulate the other 80 per cent of our members?”
In the same vein, ASTTBC asked that, since only 13 per cent of its members work in natural resource, how will the changes impact those members not in that sector?
“I would caution government against reacting too quickly,” said ASTTBC CEO Theresa McCurry. “By creating a new layer of bureaucracy with an independent office to regulate the regulators, it will not address the issues of improved environmental assessments.”
McCurry said enactment of many of the recommendations is likely to weaken the current level of oversight of qualified professionals in B.C.
“There is a real potential for creating an unsafe environment as people work around an overly expensive and bureaucratic system,” she said.
Keith Sashaw, president and CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of BC (ACEC-BC), said although his association isn’t directly affected by the report, “I would suggest that, given the nature of the work undertaken by our members, consulting engineering firms have a great deal of interest in what are the next steps in this process.
“ACEC-BC and the provincial government are both looking at the report’s 130 recommendations,” said Sashaw. “We’re waiting to see how the government reacts to the recommendations. We’ll have more to say after that.”
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed