PEO’s Mandate

We should not reinvent the wheel, the PEO is created by provincial legislation under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28. The organization’s objective is clearly stated under section 3 of the act.  

“The principal object of the Association is to regulate the practice of professional engineering and to govern its members, holders of certificates of authorization, holders of temporary licences, holders of provisional licences and holders of limited licences in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the by-laws in order that the public interest may be served and protected.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28, s. 2 (3); 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 11 (2).”

Additional objectives are listed under section 4 and include establish, maintain, and develop: standards of knowledge, standards of qualification and standards of practice, standards of professional ethics, as well as promote public awareness of the role of the Association.

Committees

The PEO committee system is fundamental to self-governance, and there is a great deal of talent within it; talent that is not fully harnessed. I will clarify all committee mandates and deliverables and build a selection process that is fair, transparent and dives deep into the Ontario Engineering talent pool.

Licensing

The first step to transforming licensing is to comply with the Ontario Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. The Province has ruled the PEO to be non-compliant since 2012. The Act states “if a regulated profession makes its own assessment of qualifications, it shall do so in a way that is transparent, objective, impartial and fair”. To address this, I will implement an applicant’s bill of rights where fairness, equity, and respect are paramount while preserving high licensing standards.

Ontario Society of Professional Engineers

The people at OSPE asked me three questions, below were my answers.

Question 1: In your view, what is OSPE's role within the engineering profession alongside PEO?

OSPE's role is to defend, represent, and advance Professional Engineers' interests, while the PEO's role is to regulate the engineering profession. These are complementing roles. In the Venn-diagram of public-interest and personal-interest, there is certainly overlap. That overlap represents common ground where PEO and OSPE can and should focus our mutual efforts.

Question 2: If elected, how will you work with OSPE as a PEO representative?

I will work with OSPE to find common ground between the two organisations. One place I already know we have common ground is a belief that Professional Engineers' engagement in the governance and matters impacting the profession is vital to the profession's health. This is where PEO and OSPE can help each other. I hope that OSPE can help announce the many changes that are coming to the PEO. As PEO President I will ensure that OSPE is a vital stakeholder. There will be many changes coming to the PEO’s licensing, discipline & enforcement, and standards of practice. OSPE can play a vital role in helping to understand the impact these changes will have on industry and professionals. PEO can help OSPE by encouraging OSPE membership and helping people who wish to volunteer to find a place within one of the two organisations. Both organizations have a role in communicating to the public at large the reason for and meaning of the P.Eng.

Question 3 Are you an OSPE member? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Yes, I have been a member of OSPE since shortly after becoming P.Eng. licensed because OSPE plays a vital role maintaining the strength of engineering in the Province of Ontario. I have been a member of OSPE’s infrastructure taskforce since 2016, and I have been honoured to participate in many OSPE initiatives such as legislation change consultations, industry scans, and publications.

Relationship with Government in the Public Interest

The PEO must have a relationship with the provincial Government, particularly the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Ministry administers the Professional Engineers Act. Accordingly, PEO's Government Liaison Program (GLP) focus should be on the relationship with the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Attorney General, as well as the Attorney General's Opposition critics.

Other ministries impact the PEO. The PEO can be thought of as a Co-Regulator with many other regulators under provincial jurisdictions including; the Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (i.e. building code); Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development; Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines; Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. These ministries administer legislation and regulations that often include language like "qualified person" or explicitly call for something to be performed by a Professional Engineer. The PEO is often playing catchup with other regulators to ensure that regulation does not conflict with the PEO Act. Ensuring that the PEO and the Professional Engineers Act are top of mind with these ministries is particularly important. 

We have to be very careful not to look like we are acting in the self-interest such as being protectionist or artificially limiting the supply of professional services. Some see us that way. It is vital that in our GLP goals are well defined. Simply promoting engineering should be avoided, GLP can and should be an education piece on engineers' role.

Self-regulation

Self regulation is a privilege and a responsibility. We have to be very careful not to look like we are acting in the self-interest such as being protectionist or artificially limiting the supply of professional services. Some see us that way. It is vital that in our goals are well defined. Simply promoting engineering should be avoided. PEO can and should educate on engineers' role.

My views on self regulation also relate to the section on Continuing Professional Development.

The biggest threat to self-regulation is that regulating engineering practice and engineering title will become irrelevant. If the public does not care about licencing engineers, if the public does not know the difference between an engineering graduate and a licenced P.Eng., neither will the government and self-regulation won’t matter.

The practice of engineering in high tech is not regulated at all. It is a global industry where regulation can’t keep up with progress. There is little regulatory regime around the output of this sort of engineering, which makes regulating the practice of engineering in the public interest.

We need to remember to separate the practice of engineering with the output of that engineering. PEO regulates the practice, not the output. Red tape cutting governments may see regulating engineering practice as burdensome; particularly where the output of that engineering is already highly regulated such as nuclear and automotive.

The provincial government is cutting out bureaucracy and requirements within the skilled trades regulation. They just delisted several trades. If the PEO does not demonstrate the value of the P.Eng. licence, I believe engineers could be next.

Chapters

I was the Chair of the East Toronto Chapter from 2015 to 2018 and Vice Chair before that. Some of the most fun I have had as an adult has been with this Chapter. As we outlined at the Chapter Leaders Conference, which I chaired, the PEO is transforming. Chapters will change along with the rest of the PEO. After all, change is the only constant in life.

The energy of chapters will be still be needed to communicate PEO’s changes. There will continue to be a need for Chapters in the Engineering Community. Chapters play an essential role for feedback to PEO. For instance, some good and bad licencing experience stories have come to Council via chapters.

Continuing Professional Development & Value of the P.Eng.

I am in favour of continuing professional development (CPD) programs that are simple and mandatory. Unfortunately, PEO’s Practice Evaluation and Knowledge (PEAK) program is complicated and voluntary. Simple means that professional CPD in any of the five pillars of experience meet the mandatory CPD program's needs. The five licencing pillars are; application of theory, practical experience, management of engineering, communication skills, and awareness of the social implications of engineering. Simple also means what qualifies as CPD is broad and flexible. Seminars, webinars, classroom training, product demonstrations, and conferences can and should all count. Many law firms meet most of their CPD requirements through a series of peer-to-peer learning where lawyers teach each other subjects such as legal specialities or emerging case law.

Why do we need mandatory CPD? I see it as essential for many reasons, including public trust, the relevance of the licence, transferability, risk to both the public and engineers, and maintaining competency and spurring innovations. I will elaborate on each.

Public Trust: The PEO is still addressing investigations recommending that the PEO implement mandatory CPD; the Report of the Elliot Lake Commission of Inquiry, 2014 and Office of the Chief Coroner: Verdict of Coroner's Jury - Scott Johnson (Radiohead stage collapse & Downsview Park). I do not believe we can command trust without addressing these.

Just about every licenced profession requires some form of CPD now. Law, Accounting and Architectures all have CPD as well as doctors and every single Health Profession Regulator in Ontario from Audiologists to Respiratory Therapists. Professional regulators that previously did not have mandatory CPD are quickly implementing them, including every Province's Engineering Regulators. 

Transferability:

With BC now implementing CPD, Ontario is the only provincial engineering regulator that does not have a mandatory CPD program. The lack of CPD could have severe ramifications for interprovincial P.Eng. licence reciprocity going forward.

Relevance:

Burned into my memory is a conversation with a lawyer friend.  When I told him that Engineers in Ontario did not have mandatory CPD, his response was "how do you call yourself a profession".

PEO's lack of CPD provides a strong argument for many "competing" professions to infringe on the engineering domain. I have heard stories of tradespeople advocates, from many fields, approaching the government with requests to open up the Professional Engineers Act to allow people other than Engineers to do design. If people think the "industrial exemption" limits the PEO's relevance, imagine what could happen when groups such as mechanical & electrical contractors can start doing design work.

While PEO continues talking about mandatory continuing education, many engineering graduates are pursuing designations such as Project Management Professional (PMP) and many micro-designations in Information Technology. Certifications in many traditional fields are becoming more and more popular such as Certified Energy Manager (CEM), Certified Public Infrastructure Inspector (CPII), and Certified Professional Building Designer (CPBD). These all have mandatory continuing education as a condition of continued certification. People are going for these certifications while skipping the P.Eng. licence. I have had many conversations with young professionals who tell me they are pursuing these designations instead of P.Eng. because they (and often their employers) see more value in them while seeing little to no value in the P.Eng. Also, the licencing process has become so bloated, many see it as simply not worth the trouble. People talk of possibly losing our right to self govern by government intervention.  If we do not reverse current trends, government intervention is not the risk, we are simply on our way to irrelevance.   

Risk:

The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers reported to the PEO that the global insurance underwriting community had identified Ontario to have a higher risk profile for Engineering Errors and Omissions Insurance, in part because of the PEO’s lack of mandatory professional development.

Spurring Innovation:

It is often said that every company is now a technology company. Similarly, every field of engineering is technology. We are moving at the speed of technology. It is the PEO’s responsibility to ensure that Ontario engineers are keeping up to date.

Put two jurisdictions beside each other, all else being equal, one has mandatory CPD amongst Professional Engineers while the other does not. Now, wait for ten years. I am certain that the  jurisdiction with mandatory CPD is going to see more innovation and invention along with  the prosperity that comes with it?

PEO in the next five years and beyond

I will lay the framework and foster a PEO with: governance improvements that promotes agility so we can get things moving, committee reforms with clears mandates and deliverables and licensing reform in a way that demonstrates procedural fairness.

Engineers Canada

PEO funds Engineers Canada and has seats on their board, along with other Province's engineering regulators. Engineers Canada is currently going through strategic plan development, and PEO is heavily engaged. PEO relies on Engineers Canada to develop national policy, drive standardization across provinces, and the Engineering Accreditation Board. PEO's contribution to Engineer's Canada and the Engineering Accreditation Board is vitally important to PEO's ability to regulate. A role that will not go neglected under my presidency. Succession planning and renewal will be a priority for me.