A Conceptual Professional Reliance Framework for Applied ...€¦ · A Conceptual Professional...

A Conceptual Professional Reliance Framework for

Applied Science Technologist Practice in B.C.

Report to APEGBC & ASTTBC Councils September 2012

A

PTech Framework Development Group

August 28, 2012

Date

ASTTBC/ APEGBC

A Conceptual Professional Reliance Framework for AScT Practice in BC – September 2012 2

Final – August 28, 2012

Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 4

September 2012 Recommendations to the ASTTBC and APEGBC Councils 6

1. Transitioning to a Reformulated Concept ........................................................ 6

2. Joint Board ....................................................................................................... 6

3. Advice and Request to the Minister of Advanced Education ........................... 6

PTech Framework Development Group .............................................................................. 7

Members ................................................................................................................ 7

Purpose and Deliverables ....................................................................................... 7

Progress on Phase II Deliverables: .......................................................................... 8

Stakeholder Consultation .................................................................................................. 10

Consultation Plan ................................................................................................. 10

Aspects of PTech Explored ................................................................................... 10

Feedback .............................................................................................................. 10

Common Themes Arising from Consultation ................................................. 10

Group-Specific Feedback ................................................................................ 11

Opportunity and Impact Statements for Application of PTech ......................................... 13

Illustrative Examples for PTech Practice .............................................................. 13

Reformulating the Model .................................................................................................. 14

Step 1: (Short Term) Implement a Modified Version of the Proposed Concept .. 14

Revised Key Principles and Goals from Originally Proposed Concept ............ 14

Revised Concept: Addressing Stakeholder Concerns ..................................... 16

Step 2: (Medium Term 12 months +) Joint Board ............................................... 17

Step3: (Long-Term) One Act/Two Associations, Engineering Team Model ......... 17

Appendix A: PTech Concept Approved in Principle by ASTTBC and APEGBC Councils December 2011

........................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix B: PTech Consultation ...................................................................................... 21



Appendix C: PTech – Consultation with Government and Regulatory Bodies ................. 22

Appendix D: Sample Opportunity and Impact Statement ................................................ 24

Appendix E: Options for a Reformulated Model .............................................................. 31

Appendix F: Joint Board Terms of Reference ................................................................... 35



Executive Summary

In June 2011, the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC appointed a PTech Framework Development Group

(the Group), composed of equal Members of Council from ASTTBC and APEGBC, to advise Councils

through their Joint Executive Committees on the options and preferred alternative for a framework for

the development and regulation of the PTech.

The Group was tasked with developing a model for a Professional Technologist (PTech) that would

contribute to public interest and safety, while fulfilling a role that is:

a. clearly different from that of a Professional Engineer or Engineering Licensee; and

b. easily understood by the Public.

In December 2011 the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC approved for consultation a PTech Model based

on the 9 key principles.

Since December 2011, the Group has conducted significant stakeholder consultation on the proposed

PTech Concept, both locally and nationally, and has identified several areas that require further

development before a final legislatively-sound concept can be presented.

The results of the consultation have been mixed and the consensus of the Group is that the concept of

creating a separate PTech designation for British Columbia as contemplated in its November 2011 report

is not viable, as several aspects of the concept have little chance of acceptance by key stakeholder

groups including regulators of related professions in BC and provincial and territorial regulatory bodies

for engineers and technologists across Canada.

The Group has therefore put aside for the present the PTech concept as formulated in December 2011;

choosing instead to consider a revised model for the short term, based on the aspects that received a

more favourable response from stakeholders. The revised concept is an enhanced version of current

practice, with APEGBC partnering with ASTTBC through a Joint Board to define and promote to

regulatory authorities the areas of professional reliance that are suitable for designating Applied Science

Technologists as Qualified Persons.

The revised concept retains and reformats seven of the nine key principles (denoted with an * below) of

the originally-proposed model and adds two new principles to reflect the change from the PTech to the

AScT model. The eight key principles of the revised model are:

1. *AScT practice areas will address a recognized existing problem of public safety / interest (Orig-inal Principle 1)

2. Professional reliance opportunities for AScT’s will not encroach on legislated practice

restrictions and will be aligned with required skills and competencies for registration as an

Applied Science Technologist. (New Principle )

3. Additional qualification or proof of competence may be necessary for AScT’s to practice in areas of professional reliance embedded in 3rd party legislation: ASTTBC’s Code of Ethics will guide its members in this regard .(New Principle)

4. *AScT’s in professional reliance roles are member s of, and are governed and regulated by



ASTTBC. (Original Principle 3)

5. *AScT areas of professional reliance and practice, on the advice of the Joint Board, are articulat-ed and embedded in third-party provincial or other regulatory third-party legislation. (i.e., not in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act or the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act). (Original Principle 4)

6. *AScT areas of practice are determined and proposed to third parties by a legislated APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board which is embedded in ASTTBC legislation and is currently provided in APEGBC Legislation. (Original Principle 5)

7. *The area of practice for an AScT . is not professional engineering and does not include the field of geoscience. Practitioners who wish to practice professional engineering in British Columbia must become engineering licensees or professional engineers(Original Principles 6,7 & 8); and

8. *AScT areas of practice do not prohibit practice by professional engineers. (Original Principle 9). It is the opinion of the Group that the ASTT Act does not need to be changed at this time to allow

ASTTBC to continue duties as a regulator (quality assurance, complaints, investigation, discipline and

enforcement ).

To enable the revised model, the Group proposes that:

a. the Ministry of Advanced Education be requested to immediately enact changes to the

ASTT Act to enable and empower a Joint ASTTBC/APEGBC Board that has the sole

authority to establish areas for professional reliance on Applied Science Technologists

that are suitable for promotion to regulatory authorities for embedding in 3rd party

legislation;

b. the Group take up the duties of the Joint Board to guide implementation and hand over

to a Statutory Joint Board when the enabling legislation is in place; and

c. in the long term, the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC monitor the progress of groups

such as the Canadian Framework for Licensure (Engineers Canada) and similar work by

Technology Professionals Canada; and work towards development of the PTech in BC

within a One Act - Two Association or other mutually acceptable model for British

Columbia where both Associations contribute to the Engineering Team and value each

member’s contributions to problem solving and innovation in accordance with their

competencies.

ASTTBC has indicated that embracing the proposed model will be significant leap in determining practice

areas for its members that generally align with both associations.

The Group considers this to be its final report to the Councils.



September 2012 Recommendations to the ASTTBC and APEGBC Councils

1. Transitioning to a Reformulated Concept

that the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC endorse the 8 key principles to guide the development or

areas of professional reliance for Applied Science Technologists in British Columbia

2. Joint Board

that the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC approve the establishment of a (non-statutory) Joint Board

to guide the short- and long-term development of the program

that the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC approve the Terms of Reference for a Joint Board;

that the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC approve the appointment of the current members of the PTech Framework Development Group as the inaugural members of the Joint Board

3. Advice and Request to the Minister of Advanced Education

that the Councils of ASTTBC and APEGBC jointly advise the Minister of Advanced Education of the progress on this file and seek a legislative amendment to the ASTT Act to enable and empower the Joint Board.



PTech Framework Development Group

Members

Jeff Holm, P.Eng. Co-Chair, APEGBC President

Bill Macpherson, AScT Co-Chair, ASTTBC President

Matt Cameron, P.Eng. APEGBC Appointee, Member of Council

Russell Dobie, AScT ASTTBC Appointee, Member of Council

Andy Mill, P.Eng., Struct.Eng. APEGBC Appointee, Member of Council

Keith Trulson, AScT, Eng.L. ASTTBC Appointee, Member of Council

Staff Support Tony Chong, P.Eng. CRO and Deputy Registrar, APEGBC Derek Doyle, P.Eng. CEO and Registrar, APEGBC Jason Jung, AScT Manager, Member & Program Development, ASTTBC John Leech, AScT Executive Director, ASTTBC Gillian Pichler, P.Eng. Director, Registration, APEGBC

Purpose and Deliverables

The Group’s Purpose and Deliverables are set out in its Terms of Reference:

Purpose

To advise Councils through their Joint Executive Committees on the options and preferred alternative

for a framework for the development and regulation of the PTech.

Deliverables

1. Examine the PTech Task Force report of March 2011, engaging task force members as necessary.

2. Determine how the introduction of PTech will contribute to the public interest and safety.

3. Define the role and scope of practice of the PTech within the realm of engineering technology

and professional engineering.

4. Develop a collaborative framework or joint practice board for regulating PTech practice.

5. Develop a checklist of requirements to assist in further development of the regulatory

framework of PTech practice (including admissions, practice review, quality assurance,

complaints, investigation, discipline and enforcement).

6. Estimate the start-up, legal and operational costs over 5-years and suggest how the costs and

revenues should be allocated.

7. Identify enabling legislation that may be required to facilitate implementation.



Progress on Deliverables:

In its November 2011 Report, the Group refined its go forward deliverables for the next phase

(Phase II) of its work. Table 1 below outlines the Group’s Phase II deliverables and the progress

to date:

Table 1: Progress on Phase II Deliverables

Phase II Deliverable Status

1. Advise the Minister of Advanced Education of the proposed model and

stakeholder communication/consultation plan

Complete

2. Development of a Communications and Consultation plan

3. Consultations to commence December 2011 and conclude March 15,

2012; to include:

o the information package for consultation, providing specificity

and detail to affected stakeholders; and

o examples of areas of legislation in which PTech will enhance

public safety; and

Complete

Complete

Complete

4. Stakeholders to be Consulted to Include:

Canadian provincial and territorial regulatory bodies for

engineering and technology

Canadian Framework for Licensure Group

APEGBC and ASTTBC membership

Authorities Having Jurisdiction; and

appropriate government agencies

5. Other Stakeholders:

Ministry of Advanced Education

AIBC, ABCFP, ACECBC

BC Construction Association

Building Officials

APEGBC Municipal Engineers Division

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Complete

Ongoing

Complete

Complete

Not Complete1

Complete

1 Attempts to set up a meeting with BOABC were not successful.



6. Presentation, by April 15, 2012, of the results of the consultation to

APEGBC and ASTTBC Councils with:

a. assessment of the feasibility, integrity and benefits of the

proposed model, including any ‘quick win’ areas of practice that

have been identified by stakeholders as receiving the greatest

public protection benefit from the expertise of the PTech; and

b. revisions to the model if required, based on the results of the

consultation;

c. changes to the APEGBC/ASTTBC legislation and budget for

implementation; and.

d. formal submission to Government on the proposed model and

the recommendations for legislative change.

This Report

This Report

This Report

This Report



Stakeholder Consultation

Consultation Plan A consultation plan was developed for stakeholders identified in Table 1 on page 8.

Purpose: To gather input and feedback on the proposed P.Tech. concept from key and supporting

stakeholder groups for presentation to and consideration by the P.Tech. Framework Development Group.

Approach: Consultative and participatory process in which stakeholders provide input to shape the

future direction of the P.Tech concept including benefits, opportunities and concerns.

Consultation took place from January through July 2012, incorporating a variety of vehicles including a

webinar, survey and several meetings. A detailed list of stakeholders consulted is included in Appendix

B.

Aspects of PTech Explored All aspects (see Appendix A) of the PTech Concept were explored with the stakeholders consulted.

Unsolicited feedback was also received from APEGBC’s Consulting Practice Committee.

A background paper was also drafted specifically for consultation with government regulatory

authorities, incorporating five specific questions:

1. Would the broadening of the use of Professional Reliance by the province be enhanced by the addition of a skilled and trained PTech to practice in areas that warrant improved public protec-tion?

2. Are there any specific areas where a PTech would enable broader use of Professional Reliance and public protection in your ministry?

3. Should APEGBC & ASTTBC continue to develop the concept for use by regulatory authorities? 4. If so, what advice can you give to enhance the concept and improve its usefulness to govern-

ment? 5. What cautions or problems need to be overcome for the concept to be practical for enhanced

public protection?

Feedback

Common Themes Arising from Consultation

1. Title Confusion

a. PTech vs usage in other provinces - the term P.Tech has not been rationalized across

Canada. A P.Tech (Eng) in Alberta is different than a P.Tech in New Brunswick.

b. Multiple levels of Technologist in BC

2. Mobility of PTech

a. With Alberta (PTech practices professional engineering)

b. Alberta government attuned to potential PTech mobility ‘issue’

c. Mobility with other provinces (NB)

3. PTech does ‘Applied Science Technology…’

a. ‘ Technology’ is a subset of professional engineering

b. Public confusion between PTech and PEng



c. Use Limited Licence for PTech scopes of practice

4. Professional Reliance

a. Potential for application in several areas

b. Exclude Part 9 Building Code applications

c. Must result in cost -neutral, expedited processes

5. Governance

a. Major and complex changes to ASTT Act required

b. If professional engineering, incorporate under one Act

c. Joint Board could compromise independence of ASTTBC governance

Group-Specific Feedback

1. Canadian Provincial and Territorial Regulatory Bodies for Engineering and Technology

a. Confusion about differing definitions for PTech/ desire for one common model for Canada

I. PTech Alberta does professional engineering in a limited scope

II. PTech in other provinces is a replacement designation for AScT

b. Adverse effect on Mobility, Internal Trade Agreements especially between Alberta and BC

c. PTech practice as contemplated in BC is considered to be Professional Engineering in many

Canadian jurisdictions;

d. use Limited Licence for contemplated BC PTech scopes of practice

2. APEGBC (1,536) Members & Licensees and ASTTBC (575) Members

a. Underlying theme of ‘Maintain Status Quo”

b. ASTTBC members more comfortable with concept than APEGBC members

c. APEGBC Member comments re: PTech incursions into professional engineering

d. Confusion will arise with several levels of technologist

e. Problems and costs associated with Joint Board

f. Discomfort with role for APEGBC in governance of technologists

g. Comfort with areas of practice (ASTTBC Members); discomfort with Part 9 of the Building

Code Areas of Practice (APEGBC Members)

3. APEGBC Municipal Engineers Division

a. Generally favourably disposed

b. Identified area of practice conducive to senior technologist oversight

4. APEGBC Consulting Practice Committee

a. Same points as ACEC-BC (below)

b. Consulting Practice Committee recommends that the Association of Professional Engineers

and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC) oppose a professional technologist (PTech)

designation and cease all activities regarding the creation and implementation of such a

PTech designation. In its place, the Consulting Practice Committee further recommends that

APEGBC pursue the expansion of the Limited Licensee designation.

5. Ministry of Advanced Education

a. Pleased to see APEGBC and ASTTBC working together



b. Alignment with other jurisdictions is desirable

c. Mobility of PTech between Alberta and BC a concern

d. Patchwork of practice areas; no scope of practice for PTech

e. Enhancing the ASTT Act to better define in contemporary language ASTTBC’s role as a

regulator is a significant and complex legislative request

6. Government and Regulatory Bodies (see Appendix C for additional information)

a. Overall positive/favourable response

b. Tie initiative to professional reliance

c. Address public health and safety / the public interest

d. Can help with shortage of human resources; will open up labour pool

e. Important to address existing workforce competencies; no one left behind

f. Reinforce professional accountability / oversight

g. Be mindful of AIT / New West Partnership Trade Agreement and need for portability

h. Improve productivity and do not add to regulatory burden and cost

i. Keep it ‘friendly’; pursue easy wins to establish a foundation

j. Connect to the need to manage risk

k. Enhance public confidence with the new model

l. Offset the marginalization of Professional Practice in government

7. Architectural Institute of BC

a. Opposed to concept generally, although could find comfort if practice covered under the

Engineers and Geoscientists Act

b. Strongly opposed to concept if applied to buildings and architectural practice

c. Opposition re: application of PTech to Part 9 Building Code work/crossover with

architecture

8. Association of Consulting Engineers of BC

Initial response to a presentation of the concept by the ACEC-BC board was modestly favourable

to the concept; however a number of points were subsequently raised in correspondence:

a. There is no separate practice of engineering technology; it is totally coincident with the

practice of professional engineering

b. The proposed PTech concept would not improve the protection of the public interest

because APEGBC would lose the ability to enforce the Engineers and Geoscientists Act with

respect to ASTTBC members and others

c. Allowing 3rd party legislation to define the practice of professional engineering is a

dangerous practice, further exposing the BC public to unqualified practice

d. The Regulation of the practices of professional engineering and professional geoscience

should remain under one Act administered by one professional association.

e. APEGBC currently has the regulatory structure with all the tools required to regulate the

practices of professional engineering and professional geoscience.

f. APEGBC also has the ability to issue a limited / restricted licence to individuals who don’t

possess a degree in engineering or geoscience, as long as they have the required education

and experience. This enables technologists to do what they are trained to do to the fullest



level of their training and experience, including engaging in the practice of professional en-

gineering and professional geoscience.

9. Association of BC Forest Professionals

a. Favourably disposed subject to:

i. No overlap with other professions in BC; and

ii. PTech practice not to include the practice of professional forestry or technical

occupations related to the practice of professional forestry which are fully regulated

under the forestry legislation

10. BC Construction Association

a. Must not create additional costs or delays for contractors

b. Interested if PTech will speed up permit approvals

c. Open to concept if helpful to contractors

Opportunity and Impact Statements for Application of PTech

Illustrative Examples for PTech Practice

Illustrative Examples for PTech application were developed during and after the consultation phase. A

template for Opportunity and Impact was developed, incorporating the Risk-Based Needs Assessment

from the Draft Professional Reliance Opportunity and Assessment Tool developed by the Provincial

Government. Group Criteria for illustrative examples were based on the following tenets:

a. Required skills and competencies should be easily identified

b. It is essential to illustrate that there is a clear public need

c. APEGBC and ASTTBC would be expected to provide guidelines to describe the nature of the ser-vices to be provided

d. No additional cost or delay should accrue to a project or process by adding a requirement for a PTech

e. Champions are needed to support areas of practice

Through the survey, several members of both Associations proposed areas of application for PTech and offered to champion their development. Government agencies also suggested areas of application for professional reliance. The Group also recommended developing Opportunity and Impact Statements (O & I Statements) for existing areas in which Applied Science Technologists are identified as Qualified Per-sons in provincial legislation. Several O & I Statements were developed for areas of application that are denoted by an asterisk * below. A sample Opportunity and Impact Statement is attached in Appendix D.

Suggested Areas of Application of PTech Professional Reliance (* denotes O & I

Statement Developed)

1. *Electrical – Signal Timing Plans for Traffic Signals (suggested by members & Ministry of

Transportation)

2. *Mechanical – Fire Suppression Systems (suggested by members)

3. *Civil – Traffic Construction Management Plans (suggested by Municipal Engineers Division)



4. Permit Application Review re: Water Sourcing for Fracking (suggested by Oil & Gas Commission)

5. Compliance re: Discharges to Air, Water, Municipal Landfills (suggested by BC Environment)

6. Health & Safety Inspection in Mines (suggested by Energy & Mines)

7. Reclamation Specialists (suggested by Oil & Gas Commission)

8. Sewage Plant Operators above Level W (suggested by BC Environment)

9. Industrial and Municipal Compliance Technologists (suggested by BC Environment)

10. Environmental Monitoring & reporting (suggested by BC Environment)

11. Roads in the Forest Sector (suggested by Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resources)

Reformulating the Model The Group has considered several options for a modified concept and evaluated the pros and cons of

each based on the feedback from consultation (see Appendix E for PTech Framework Options Arising

from Consultation).

It has concluded that the current proposed concept will not gain traction as several organizations are strongly opposed to the concept and government reception, while encouraging, has identified issues such as mobility that need to be resolved. The consensus of the Group is that a learning model be adopted with a long-term stepwise approach that introduces a modified version of the current concept, transitioning in the long term to a One Act, Two Associations, One Team model.

Step 1: (Short Term) Implement a Modified Version of the Proposed Concept

Revised Key Principles and Goals from Originally Proposed Concept

The revised concept is based on the principle that developing professional reliance opportunities for Applied Science Technologists in British Columbia will result in improved protection of the public inter-est and build upon existing workforce competencies and QP recognition currently available to AScT's to address expertise and labour shortages in government. Costs for development of this concept will be the responsibility of ASTTBC with the exception that the Joint Board costs will be shared as set out in the Terms of Reference.

The revised concept retains and reformats seven of the nine key principles (denoted with an * below) of

the originally-proposed model and adds two new principles to reflect the change from the PTech to the

AScT model. Table 2 on Page 14 compares the eight key principles of the revised model versus the 9 of

the original model:



Table 2: Principles of Original and Revised Models

Original Model (PTech) Revised Model (AScT+)

Principle 1 P.Tech. practice areas will addresses a recognized existing problem of public safety

Principle 1 AScT practice areas will address a recognized existing problem of public safety/interest

Principle 2 A P.Tech. is recognized according to individual competencies (academic and experience)

Principle 2 Professional reliance opportunities for AScT’s will not encroach on legislated practice restrictions and will be aligned with required skills and competencies for registration as an Applied Science Technologist

Principle 3 Additional qualification or proof of competence may be necessary for AScT’s to practice in areas of professional reliance embedded in 3

rd party legislation: ASTTBC’s

Code of Ethics will guide its members in this regard

Principle 3 A P.Tech. is a member of and is governed and

regulated by ASTTBC

Principle 4 AScT’s in professional reliance roles are member s of and are governed and regulated by ASTTBC

Principle 4 P.Tech. areas of practice are articulated and embedded in third-party provincial or other regulatory third-party legislation. (i.e., not in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act or the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act)

Principle 5 AScT areas of professional reliance and practice, on the advice of the Joint Board, are articulated and embedded in third-party provincial or other regulatory third-party legislation. (i.e., not in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act or the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act).

Principle 5 P.Tech. areas of practice are determined and proposed to third parties by a legislated APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board which is embedded in ASTTBC and APEGBC Legislation

Principle 6 AScT areas of practice are determined and proposed to third parties by a legislated. APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board which is embedded in ASTTBC legislation and is currently provided in APEGBC Legislation.

Principle 6 The area of practice for a P.Tech. is not

professional engineering but is applied

science technology as it pertains to the

application of engineering principles

Principle 7 The area of practice for an AScT. is not professional engineering and does not include the field of geoscience. Practitioners who wish to practice professional engineering in British Columbia must become engineering licensees or professional engineers

Principle 7 P.Tech. practice does not include the field of

geoscience

Principle 8 Practitioners who wish to practice

professional engineering in British Columbia

must become engineering licensees or

professional engineers

Principle 9 P.Tech. areas of practice do not prohibit

practice by professional engineers.

Principle 8 AScT areas of practice do not prohibit

practice by professional engineers



Revised Concept: Addressing Stakeholder Concerns

Issue Addressed by Revised Model?

1. Title Confusion

a. PTech vs usage in other provinces - the term

P.Tech has not been rationalized across Canada.

A P.Tech (Eng) in Alberta is different than a

P.Tech in New Brunswick.

b. Multiple levels of Technologist in BC

2. Mobility of PTech

a. With Alberta (PTech does professional

engineering)

b. Alberta government attuned to potential PTech

mobility ‘issue’

c. Mobility with other provinces (NB)

3. PTech does ‘Applied Science Technology…’

a. ‘ Technology’ is a subset of professional

engineering

b. Public confusion between PTech (read AScT) and

PEng

c. Use Limited Licence for PTech (read AScT) scopes

of practice

(possible short-term confusion be-tween AScT, EngL and PEng practice;

may be addressed in long-term by One Act - Two Ass’n or other model)

4. Professional Reliance

a. Potential for application in several areas

b. Exclude Part 9 Building Code applications

c. Must result in cost -neutral, expedited processes

5. Governance

a. Changes to ASTT Act required to more fully

define regulatory role

b. If professional engineering, incorporate under

one Act

c. Joint Board could compromise independence of

ASTTBC governance

/ (major Act changes not required to

implement, but regulator duties could be better framed)

(Long-term)

(ASTTBC willing to try for good of rela-tionship)



Step 2: (Medium Term 12 months +) Framework Group hands over work to Joint Board

to guide development until the Statutory Joint Board is enabled by legislation (see

Appendix F for Draft Terms of Reference)

Step3: (Long-Term) One Act/Two Associations, Engineering Team Model

Concept:

One Act, Two Associations, One Team/Brand. The act could be named the 'Engineering & Geoscience Professions Act' (this would avoid the need for the ASTT Act to be rewritten to ensure it possesses attributes consistent with the E&G Act.

Branding would ensure clear and easily understood titles for all team members: PEng; EngL; AScT; and CTech.

EngLs could be of two kinds, those with Standard Scopes of practice and those with Individual Scopes of practice. The two associations would jointly promote the use and application of Professional Reliance by the engineering team. EngL and public members could be added to appropriate committees as the associations bring the Engineering Team to life.

Pros: a. The recently amended E&G Act has the tools to establish a Joint Board with appropriate

terms of reference and carry out nearly all regulatory functions with full legal authority. b. In time, one statute can be developed to define and regulate all of the engineering team’s

duties, including what is now defined as 'professional engineering' and exclusive to a PEng/EngL and also 'engineering technology' which is open to ASTTBC-certified technologists.

c. The challenge of defining the practice of engineering technology will be achieved over time through setting out specific scopes rather than as an intellectual and interpretive debate.

d. Practice management guidelines, practice reviews, complaint management, investigation and discipline that are fully authorized in the E&G Act can be used with representation added from ASTTBC on appropriate committees.

e. Government is expected to support the Engineering Team and any necessary minor legislative amendments whereas complex legislative requests require great political effort.

f. One statute governs practice for all Team members and defines practitioners to be recognized.

g. Eliminates the APEGBC - ASTTBC 'tension' over areas of practice. h. Meets tests for enhancing public protection and advancing public interest i. Could ameliorate some of the mobility concerns about AIT. j. Addresses issues raised by some who were consulted, e.g., ACEC-BC.

Cons: a. Legislative amendments, though simple, will require support of government. b. AIBC, ABCFP may continue in opposition. c. The need to define engineering technology will be a major challenge if attempted as an

intellectual vs. practical applications endeavour.



Appendix A: PTech Concept Approved in Principle by ASTTBC and APEGBC

Councils December 2011

Option 2: PTech Practices in Currently Unregulated Areas to be Defined through

Third-Party Legislation

After much discussion and weighing of options and concepts, the Group decided that public protection

could only truly be improved if PTech practice were targeted at areas of practice that are currently

unregulated or where the AScT is already recognized, and in which recognized or potential issues of

public safety / interest are present. The Group sought and received clarification from ASTTBC Council on

its position with respect to this concept. It received a written proposal from the ASTTBC Council that

accepted and articulated its concept of the aspects of this model.

The Group then developed the attributes of the proposed model with respect to:

Key Principles and Goals of PTech

PTech Areas of Practice; and

PTech Governance, including the Role of a Legislated Joint Board.

Key Principles and Goals of PTech

i. improved protection of the public interest vs status quo

ii. PTech practice addresses a recognized existing problem of public safety

iii. practitioners are recognized according to individual competencies (academic and experience)

iv. area of practice for a PTech is not professional engineering but is applied science technology as

it pertains to the application of engineering principles2

v. building an enduring and mutually respectful relationship between APEGBC and ASTTBC by

collaborating in regulating their members’ practice.

PTech Areas of Practice

i. are applied science technology as it pertains to the application of engineering principles and do

not include professional geoscience

a. use of terms which imply that the person is practising professional engineering or

holding themselves out to be a professional engineer contravenes the Engineers and

Geoscientists Act;

2 The terms ‘applied science technology’, ‘engineering technology’ and ‘applied science technology as it pertains to the application of engineering principles’ were considered, with the objective of clearly distinguishing between the practice area of

the PTech and the practice of professional engineering. The Group decided that, for the purposes of this report, it would use

‘applied science technology as it pertains to the application of engineering principles’, and would consider the terminology

following stakeholder consultation.



ii. practitioners who wish to practise professional engineering in British Columbia must become

Engineering Licensees or Professional Engineers;

iii. do not prohibit practice by professional engineers;

iv. are identified, formally agreed to (through a legislated APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board) and jointly

presented to the appropriate legislative body by APEGBC and ASTTBC. The model will also

define how to handle situations where the two associations are not in accord;

v. are articulated and embedded in third-party municipal, provincial or other regulatory third-party

legislation (i.e. not in the Engineers and Geoscientists Act or the Applied Science Technologists

and Technicians Act);

vi. are not assumed to be based on scopes of practice issued for Professional Technologists in

other provinces or territories;

vii. are not assumed to be valid when embedded in the legislation of other provinces or territories;

and

viii. the proposed British Columbia Professional Technologist model is not related to the model

currently in force in the Province of Alberta where the Professional Technologist has the right to

practise professional engineering and professional geoscience in an individualised specified

scope of practice.

Example of a PTech Area of Practice

The Group identified areas of practice where technical expertise is needed for life safety issues and

lack of technical judgment is potentially dangerous. Public protection could be improved if a PTech

were specified in third-party legislation as required to take responsibility for the work. One such

example is to require that a PTech sign Letters of Assurance for structural, mechanical and electrical

technology for Part 9 as defined in the BC Building Code Buildings (exclusive of single family

dwellings).

PTech Governance

i. PTech is a member of and is governed and regulated by ASTTBC

ii. PTech practice is defined by 3rd party legislation or 3rd party regulation

iii. Areas of practice are determined and proposed to third parties by a legislated APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint

Board which is embedded in ASTTBC and APEGBC legislation;

iv. the APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board also determines appropriate ways of protecting the public through

PTech practice and provides ongoing guidance and issue resolution to the associations; and

v. the model defines the process to be followed when the legislated APEGBC/ASTTBC Joint Board is not

able to reach an accord on PTech practice rights.

Role of the Joint Board

The Group, while agreeing that the role of a legislated Joint Board will evolve over time, proposed that its

mandate be at a minimum, to:

i. determine appropriate ways of protecting the public through PTech practice and provide ongoing

guidance and issue resolution to the associations

ii. establish skill and competency criteria for PTech

a. with reference to the PTech Task Force recommendations, it was concluded that only AScT’s

will be able to apply for PTech

iii. establish criteria for quality assurance processes for PTech including the discipline process; and review

their adequacy on an ongoing basis

iv. provide general support of enforcement of their respective Acts to both associations

v. research and define areas of practice to be recommended as requiring a PTech through third party

legislation towards improved public protection; and

a. consider requests from regulators for areas of practice appropriate to PTech

b. review existing third party legislation that confers right to practice as Qualified Persons to

Applied Science Technologists(AScT’s) or ‘Technologists’; and determine proposed changes to

include PTech

c. establish specific competency requirements for PTech’s practising in specified areas through

third party legislation

d. identify and inform sponsors/champions in government and elsewhere who will support the

case for requiring PTech through specific third party legislation to improve public protection

e. jointly make the case to regulators for modifications to existing legislation to include PTech or

to articulate areas in existing legislation where requiring a PTech is necessary for improved

public protection (e.g. Part 9 buildings that are not houses; and

f. consider requests from regulators regarding PTech practice

vi. consider and recommend resolution for practice issues that affect members or designated/certified

specialists from both associations

vii. consider and make recommendations for issues related to national mobility of holders of PTech

designation; and

viii. establish criteria for use of PTech seal.

The Joint Board will not

i. review individual applications for PTech; or

ii. deal with enforcement or discipline cases for either association, but may deal with general

enforcement or practice issues arising from individual cases.

Appendix B: PTech Consultation

Stakeholder Group Method Date

Canadian provincial and territorial regulatory

bodies for engineering and technology

Webinar

Meetings

January 2012

March 2012

Canadian Framework for Licensure Group

APEGBC and ASTTBC Memberships

Survey February 2012

APEGBC Past Presidents Forum

APEGBC Municipal Engineers Division

APEGBC Consulting Practice Committee

Meeting

Meeting

Unsolicited

Comments

June 2012

January 2012

June 2012

Government Authorities

Ministry of Advanced Education Meeting January 2012

Jobs, Tourism, Innovation Meeting June 2012

Oil & Gas Commission Meeting June 2012

BC Environment Meeting July 2012

Energy & Mines Meeting July 2012

Forests, Lands & Natural Resource

Operations

Meeting July 2012

Transportation & Infrastructure Meeting July 2012

Professional/Business Organizations

Architectural Institute of BC Meeting April 2012

Association of Consulting Engineers of BC Meeting April 2012

Association of BC Forest Professionals Meeting March 2012


Meeting May 2012

Building Officials Association of BC Pending

Appendix C: PTech – Consultation with Government and Regulatory Bodies

A Report for the PTech Framework Development Group

July 12, 2012

Prepared by John Leech with input from Derek Doyle

The Consultations

As requested by the PTech Framework Development Group, APEGBC CEO, Derek Doyle and ASTTBC Executive Director, John

Leech, met with representatives of a number of Government Ministries, regulatory bodies and industry associations for the

purpose of informing them of the PTech proposal and gathering from them their initial feedback and areas for possible

application of PTech. In the case of the Oil & Gas Commission Derek Doyle was joined by Jason Jung as John Leech was not

available. Representation from those visited ranged from the Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister to other senior

management.

Those visited:


Ministry of Energy and Mines

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation

Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

Oil & Gas Commission

Summary of Responses

There was genuine interest in learning more of the PTech proposal, in particular as to its potential application within

professional reliance. The other general theme was the need to increase the pool of people available to government and

deploy diminishing resources in an effective manner. This was often characterized as either ‘we do not have enough people

overall, succession and need to utilize our skills to their full potential’ or ‘we do not have enough PEng's and need to use

other skills such as technologists’ (which was generally viewed as a satisfactory solution and use of talent) .

Specific comments:

Tie initiative to professional reliance

Address public health and safety / the public interest

Can help with shortage of human resources; will open up labour pool

Important to address existing workforce competencies; no one left behind

Reinforce professional accountability / oversight

Be mindful of AIT / New West partnership and need for portability

Improve productivity and do not add to regulatory burden and cost

Keep it ‘friendly’; pursue easy wins to set foundation

Connect to the need to manage risk

Facilitate public confidence with the new model

Offset the marginalization of Professional Practice in government

Over all there was a positive / favourable response.

Potential Areas for PTech Application

During the discussions there were a number of specific areas identified for the possible utilization of the proposed PTech.

Examples include: certain elements of bridge inspections; first level of dam inspections; industrial and municipal compliance of

engineering works; health and safety inspections; air and hydrometric monitoring; environmental assessment; stream

crossings; and, mine permitting. There is potential for many other areas.

Most agreed to work with APEGBC and ASTTBC to ‘work up’ these potential applications using the Group’s model / template.

Further meetings have been proposed to advance modeling.

Issues Warranting Consideration

Those visited offered comment about possible areas to avoid or that require close attention:

Do not get bogged down in multi-union jurisdictional matters

Start with areas where there will be little controversy

Indicate what it ‘is not’ as well as what ‘it is’

Steer clear of anything which might add to regulatory ‘burden’ or cost

Be alert to the sensitivities of others

Titles can help and hinder, choose wisely,

Appendix D: Sample Opportunity and Impact Statement

PTech (read AScT) Opportunity and Impact Proposal Drafted by: K. Trulson, AScT, EngL – Chair & Tru-Line Technologies Inc.

G. Cross, P.Eng. – Regional Traffic Engineer - BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Jerry Froese, P.Eng. – Senior Traffic Engineer, MoTI - Reviewer

Signal Timing Plans* for Traffic Signals *see Appendix for Example

Description of the Opportunity

Optimization and capacity analysis for traffic signal timing plans, including

pedestrian signals and special crosswalks and updates.

- Not including electrical engineering design of signals. - Not including traffic signals that are integral to railway crossings. - Limited by speed and volume of traffic (TBD)

Problem to be Solved or

Issue to be Addressed

Public Protection

Public Safety can be optimized especially in smaller municipalities without

professional engineers on staff but that may have a technologist (PTech) on

staff who is specialized and capable of doing traffic signal timing plans in a safe

and appropriate way.

This will allow municipalities to respond to emergency and other traffic signal

timing issues in a timely fashion instead of waiting for professional engineers

who may be required by legislation to do the work. Lack of timely emergency

traffic signal timing response creates potential for accidents such as accidents

due to unexpected traffic queues and unintentional running of red lights.

Capitalizing on Competencies of B.C. Workforce

Highly specialized individuals who are not professional engineers are capable

of doing traffic and pedestrian signal timing plans.

a. Special crosswalks and pedestrian signals are within the anticipated purview of the PTech; and

b. Traffic signal timing has prescriptive guidelines with accepted ranges.

Traffic signal plans that involve railway crossings are excluded as there is a lack

of a province-wide uniform or prescriptive approach to signal timing.

Streamlining Legislation/Optimizing Professional Reliance

Smaller municipalities without professional engineers on staff but that may

have a technologist on staff who is specialized and capable of doing traffic

signal timing plans in a safe and appropriate way.

Impacts

Benefits

a. Improved access to/reliance on subject matter experts in smaller mu-nicipalities;

b. Increased distribution of professional reliance among members of the engineering team in smaller municipalities who do not have a traffic engineer on staff ;

c. Improved level of expertise and requisite knowledge in the area of traf-fic signal timing planning;

d. Faster emergency response when professional engineers are not avail-able.

Issues:

a. Opportunity needs to be studied to limit it to traffic speed (e.g.>70 kph) and volumes of (TBD)

b. Restriction excludes railway crossings, due to high public risk and po-tential for catastrophic downside and lack of uniform or prescriptive approach to signal timing calculations for railway crossing applications. Traffic operations at traffic signals adjacent to railroad grade crossings are very complicated.

c. Risk – unionized provincial government engineers – being replaced by technician/technologists. Union’s assertion is that if a technician does take on that job, it removes career opportunities for engineers. With respect to larger ministries and municipalities, it could be seen to be a risk to career opportunities for professional engineers.

d. Acceptance of PTech expertise in lieu of P.Eng. by affected municipali-ties.

Benefits of Use of Professional Reliance & Qualified Persons (next three sections are excerpted from BC Forest and Range Challenge Paper: Developing a Pro-fessional Reliance Opportunity Assessment Tool February 2012)

Mandatory

High

Medium

Use of PR and QP is desirable. Higher quality submissions or plans are expected with the use of QPs

that can expedite the review and approval process. The work has some complex aspects and the solution is not always

clear (e.g. administrative or technical aspects). Use will result in moderate efficiencies for proponents and govern-

ment. It is cost effective to use QPs.

Low

Impact cont’d

Risk-Based Need

a. Likelihood that Risk Event will Occur

- Possible (25-55%)

b. Consequence (Severity of Effect if it does Occur)

- Significant

c. Risk-Based Need (Likelihood Possible + Consequence: Major)

- Medium

Professional Reliance Opportunity: Good

Barriers

a. Educating municipalities on the role and competencies of the PTech and Municipal acceptance of PTech reliance.

b. Possible pushback from professional engineers.

c. Consensus on the areas of practice and exclusions for the PTech.

d. Engineers in provincial government and larger municipalities being re-placed by technician/technologists and potential of removal career opportunities for engineers in this area.

Constraints

A professional engineer is required for:

a. electrical engineering design of signals. b. traffic signals that are integral with railway crossings

Regulatory Impacts

Regulatory Authority(ies) Having Jurisdiction

Statute(s) Affected

Municipal Bylaws for smaller municipalities

Provincial Government requirements? – documented? – Graeme to advise how

established

Parties & Stakeholders

to be Consulted

ACECBC

Provincial Government Ministry/Branch

i. MOTI

MIA City of Vancouver Professional Employees’ Association Institute of Transportation Engineers – (CITE) – BC Chapter(s) IMSA (International Municipal Signals Association) APEGBC Municipal Engineers Division

ASTTBC Committees

i. Board of Examiners re: competencies for PTechs (read AScT’s) APEGBC Committees

i. Consulting Practice Committee ii. Limited Licence Subcommittee

Feedback from Consultation TBD

Professional Reliance Opportunity Assessment Tool –

(Excerpted from February 2011 Professional Reliance Cross-Ministry Working Group, BC Ministry of For-

ests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Challenge Paper: Developing a Professional Reli-ance Opportunity Assessment Tool)

Step 1: Who, what and where is the tool being use for.

Who

To encourage tenure holders or proponents to use QPs (either consultants or staff) for certain

functions such as preparing applications, plans and reporting.

To encourage government to use QPs (either consultants or staff) to support functions such as

peer reviews and providing decision-making support.

What

What programs or functions are not being handled in an efficient manner (e.g. they are too time

consuming for staff) that the Tool should be applied to?

What are the ‘pinch-points’ (blockages/slowdowns) in the business process for that program or function

where the use of QPs could assist and where the Tool should be applied?

Are there functions where, if QPs are used by a proponent or tenure holder, government either does not

need to undertake a review or can undertake a more abbreviated review process?

Where

All of BC e.g. regarding the use of QP for carrying out a particular function or activity across the

province (like reporting on water quality or inventory).

Region/district e.g. to identify areas of higher risk for particular reasons (such as wildlife sensitiv-

ity).

Site specific proposal or projects e.g. assessing the benefits of use and risk-based needs for QPs

related to a specific major project.

Step 2: Benefits of use of PR and qualified persons (QPs).

Mandatory

This ranking applies where there is a legal requirement that QPs be used to carry out a function

(e.g. laws governing professional associations, natural resource sector legislation).

High

Use of PR and QP is expected.

It is unlikely that the function (e.g. plan or application) will be acceptable without a QP being in-

volved.

The work is complex and the solution is uncertain (e.g. administrative or technical aspects).

Use will result in considerable efficiencies for proponents and government.

Use of QPs expected to result in cost savings (e.g. given quality work and lower transaction

costs).

Medium

Use of PR and QP is desirable.

Higher quality submissions or plans are expected with the use of QPs that can expedite the re-

view and approval process.

The work has some complex aspects and the solution is not always clear (e.g. administrative or

technical aspects).

Use will result in moderate efficiencies for proponents and government.

It is cost effective to use QPs.

Low

Use of PR and QP is considered not useful to achieve objectives.

The work is straightforward and the solution is clear (e.g. administrative or technical aspects).

Costs of using QP are not practicable given the situation .

Step 3: Risk-based need for PR and QPs.

Potential risk factors include:

Conflict with existing tenures or uses.

Potential First Nations rights and title.

Environmental conflicts or impacts.

Conflict with another government agency’s resource management

expectations or decisions.

Tension with competing applications.

Public concerns/opposition.

Government remaining a knowledgeable owner.

Failure to provide the most beneficial use of the land and resource.

Financial costs, including revenue to the Crown.

Risk rating helps identify opportunities for new or improved use of PR and QP based on an assessment of

the relative risk of a function or program being carried out in regard to Crown land and resources. Risk

analysis is the process of calculating the likelihood of an event and the consequences if it were to occur.

Appendix E: Options for a Reformulated Model

PTech Framework options arising from consultation

Prepared by John Leech & Derek Doyle(June 24, 2012)

Based upon the feedback thus far, our purpose is to build on the

collaborative spirit between our organizations in an effort to

enhance public protection within the field of engineering.

Due to the concerns raised in various quarters with the PTech

Concept we felt that a broad review of possible alternatives

would assist the Framework Working Group in coming to its

recommendations to Councils. Therefore, this paper examines

several Models that appear to be feasible as a result of the

diverse feedback through the consultation process. These do not

represent any policy commitment by the organizations and are

strictly a working paper for the consideration of the PTech

Framework Group.

Model A: Current PTech Concept being consulted with stakeholders

Concept: PTech fields of practice are defined jointly. The PTech

is regulated by and is a member of ASTTBC. PTech does not

practice professional engineering and is established by a joint

board with enablement through third party regulation.

Pros:

a. Can provide enhanced public protection

b. Concept is acceptable to both Councils

Con:

a. Does not easily accommodate mobility across Canada under AIT

and this is important to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and

Innovation.

b. Several engineering organizations are strongly opposed; APEGA

and ASET, APEGS, APEGNB etc. and this could prove an issue for

government when legislative amendments are sought.

c. Influential BC professional associations, AIBC, ABCFP, are

opposed or want explicit exclusion of their practice fields;

d. Consulting engineers are opposed (ACEC-BC) but a further

meeting with their building committee is possible.

Model B: Replace the title PTech in Model A with Senior Applied

Science Technologist but retain the concept as defined and

endorsed by Councils.

Concept: Use existing ASTT Act and Regulations governing AScT

but require AScT to acquire additional experience (6 years vs.

2) prior to being eligible to assume independent responsibility.

The joint board would define areas for independent practice

which would be enabled by third party regulation. ASTTBC could

then issue a special certificate to an AScT.

Pros:

a. Can provide enhanced public protection

b. We are building on a title that is in place and is recognized

as a QP.

c. Neutralizes APEGA/ASET opposition to use of PTech title.

d. Ease of implementation.

Cons:

a. Does not meet ASTTBC goal to introduce PTech in BC.

b. Sister associations may be opposed due to practice rights

granted through third party regulators which could be difficult

to control, e.g. municipalities.

c. AIBC, ABCFP and ACEC-BC unlikely to change their positions.

Model C: Go it alone with PTech under ASTT Act and Regulations

Concept: Use existing ASTT Act and Regulations as foundation for

awarding PTech without reference to the Joint Board envisaged in

Model A and Model B above. The possibility of ASTTBC informally

establishing a board has not been examined.

Pros:

a. ASTTBC is of the view that all necessary authorities are in

place and ready to go but APEGBC has a contrary view.

b. PTech is enhanced level of AScT

c. Gets ball rolling with little muss or fuss as seen by ASTTBC

d. May have mobility with some jurisdictions using PTech where

their scope is within 'engineering technology'

Cons:

a. Does not incorporate the Joint Board so that there would be

no oversight of the PTech functional areas by APEGBC and so no

further need for the ASTTBC/APEGBC collaborative work and

relationship.

b. The ASTT Act will require major revisions to provide legal

authority for all aspects of regulation in APEGBC’s view.

c. Regulatory confusion as to whether a third party should use

an AScT, PTech, EngL or PEng to achieve public protection under

Professional Reliance in BC.

d. Mobility confusion, particularly with Alberta.

Model D: Create the “Engineering Team” with Joint Board and E&G

Act for early implementation.

Concept: One Engineering Team, Two Acts, Two Associations, One

Brand recommended now for implementation. The framework will be

enshrined in new legislation when most of the implementation

kinks have been worked out. Currently we are a number of years

away from new legislation. By then the associations could be

ready with One Act, Two Associations, One Team/Brand. The act

could be named the 'Engineering & Geoscience Professions Act' or

alternatively, the ASTT Act could be amended to ensure it

possesses attributes consistent with the E&G Act. Branding would

ensure clear and easily understood titles for all team members:

PEng; EngL; PTech; AScT; and CTech. APEGBC would need to

recognize / create the title PTech within the E&G Act to enable

early implementation. ASTTBC would formally initiate the PTech

and PTechs would be members of, and regulated by, ASTTBC.

EngLs could be of two kinds, those with Standard Scopes of

practice and those with Individual Scopes of practice. The two

associations would jointly promote the use and application of

Professional Reliance by the engineering team. EngL and public

members could be added to appropriate committees immediately as

the associations bring the Engineering Team to life.

Pros:

a. The amended E&G Act has the tools to establish a Joint Board

with appropriate terms of reference and carry out nearly all

regulatory functions with full legal authority.

b. In time, one statute can be developed to define and regulate

all of the engineering team’s duties, including what is now

defined as 'professional engineering' and exclusive to a

PEng/EngL and also 'engineering technology' which is open to

ASTTBC-registered professionals.

c. The challenge of defining the practice of engineering

technology will be achieved over time through setting out

specific scopes as envisaged with Model A rather than as an

intellectual and interpretive argument now.

d. Practice management guidelines, practice reviews, complaint

management, investigation and discipline that are fully

authorized in the E&G Act can be used with representation added

from ASTTBC.

e. Government is expected to support the Engineering Team and

any necessary minor legislative amendments whereas complex

legislative requests require huge political capital.

f. One statute governs practice for all Team members and defines

practitioners to be recognized

g. Eliminates the APEGBC - ASTTBC 'tension' over areas of

practice.

h. Meets tests for enhancing public protection and advancing

public interest

i. Could ameliorate some of the mobility concerns about AIT

j. Addresses issues raised by some who were consulted, e.g.,

ACEC-BC

k. Could be a similar legislative model to Alberta as details

are developed.

Cons:

a. PTech will be a new title in the current E&G Act to enable

early implementation.

b. Legislative amendments, though simple, will require support

of government.

c. AIBC, ABCFP may continue in opposition.

d. The need to define engineering technology will be a major

challenge if attempted as an intellectual vs. practical

applications endeavour.

e. PTech could still confuse ‘branding’ of the Team and use by

governments

Model E: Generally replicate the APEGA/ASET model with two types

of engineering Limited License.

Concept: Convert the PTech to an engineering Limited License

with individuals as members of ASTTBC but regulated through a

joint board and joint committees with APEGBC.

Pros:

a. Builds support for the APEGA/ASET model that could influence

a possible national solution.

b. Ease of mobility between Alberta and BC.

c. Government may find it easier to fully enable.

d. AIBC, ABCFP and ACEC-BC should be comforted because PTech

will be seen as the same as the existing EngL.

Cons:

a. May compound the challenges faced by EngL with acceptability

by some municipalities seeking to manage their own risks and

exposure. A long term concerted effort by both organizations

will be needed to respond with support from those availing of

the PTech expertise.

b. Does not provide enhanced public protection outside the field

of professional engineering as does Model A, unless expanded to

include AScT and CTech in BC.

Recommendation:

The authors recommend that the Framework Development Group

review and evaluate these optional models before reaffirming any

commitment to Model A.

Appendix F: Joint Board Terms of Reference

Date post:	19-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

A Conceptual Professional Reliance Framework for Applied ...€¦ · A Conceptual Professional...

Documents