June 2003

British Columbia Council Seeks More Input on Merger Proposal

from Innovation - APEGBC Association Notes, Jan/Feb 2003

The November 2002 issue of Innovation reported the results of an online survey of APEGBC members regarding a proposed amalgamation with the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC (ASTTBC). This proposal to regulate the entire fields of engineering and geoscience under one Act, with graduated levels of membership, received cautious support from Association members.

APEGBC received almost 1,800 web and over 50 written responses to the survey. Almost 78% of respondents agreed that all members of the "Engineering and Geoscience Team" should be required to meet appropriate standards of responsibility and accountability for their position on the "Team" and to practise under a uniform code of conduct and ethics.

Over 60% of respondents thought it was appropriate to regulate the work of engineers, geoscientists, technologists and technicians in differing grades of membership under one Act and through one professional body. However, member support for an APEGBC/ASTTBC merger as outlined in the proposal document that accompanied the survey dropped to 53.5%.

Based on the survey results, Council and senior staff believe that APEGBC members need more background information on the relationship between APEGBC and ASTTBC, as well as the analyses of the merger pros and cons that led the joint task force to recommend a one Act/one Association merger.

A Greater Say for Members

Discussion on the APEGBC/ASTTBC merger issue at the October 2002 AGM concluded with an undertaking to:

• mount an information campaign to better inform members of the ramifications of "go" and "no go" scenarios, and
• present the issue to all members in a referendum in May 2003.

The referendum will ask members whether they support merging ASTTBC into APEGBC to create one organization, responsible under one Act — a new Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act — to regulate the entire field of engineering and geoscience practice in BC.

ASTTBC and Scope of Practice

In 1985, BC technologists received their own legislation, the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Act, and ASTTBC was formed from the Society of Engineering Technologists of BC, originally founded in 1958.

The ASTT Act is "right to title" legislation that grants the use of the protected titles "Applied Science Technologist" and "Certified Technician." The technologists' request to government to include a scope of practice in the legislation was strongly opposed by APEBC at that time — as it is today — and scope of practice was deleted from the ASTT Act.

In opposing the inclusion of a scope of practice, the President of APEBC wrote to the Minister: "… definition should rest in the Engineers Act as any other course will confuse the public. All decisions with respect to the practice of engineering should be administered under one Act."

Technologists Seek More Authority

Across Canada, provincial technology associations have continuously sought the recognition they believe scope of practice will bring to their members. As an example, the 1998 amendments to provincial legislation governing the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba now include an exemption for technologists: "Nothing in this Act applies to prevent… a person who is certified under the Certified Applied Science Technologists Act in an engineering discipline from engaging in an act that constitutes the occupation of applied science technology."

This exemption was included as a result of the technologists' lobby. It illustrates the lack of professional practice clarity that can result when "others" are in charge of drafting the language that governs the engineering and geoscience professions.

Another area where technologists are having some success in obtaining practice rights is through demand side legislation, and in particular within the definitions of Qualified Persons, or QPs. Typically, engineers, geoscientists, biologists, agrologists and technologists are now included as QPs in the regulations of the Waste Management Act, Liquid Waste Management Act and Environmental Professionals Act, to name a few.

APEGBC continues to argue that providing a scope of practice in this fashion is wrong, as it creates a false sense of accountability that technologists and technicians do not possess under their present legislation.

The Current Merger Proposal

In 2001, APEGBC and ASTTBC struck a joint task force to revisit the question of integration. The JTF spent considerable time discussing the "why do it" question and concluded that a merger should proceed only if the pros clearly outweighed the cons.

In the course of analyzing the broad and detailed implications of a merger, the JTF concluded that an amalgamation would have sufficient positive outcomes, a primary imperative being the belief that the entire practice of engineering should be regulated in a consistent and common fashion. The JTF further concluded that any proposal would have to adequately address the concerns arising from a merger and result in a stronger organization.

Concerns for a Combined Body

The majority of concerns identified by the JTF were largely qualitative issues:

• dilution of the professions and a resultant loss of autonomy for engineers and geoscientists;
• diminished status for engineers and geoscientists;
• possible confusion by the public as to the skill and practice differences between engineers and technologists, leading to a "blurring" of roles over time.

Given that the merger proposal calls for the creation of different grades of membership, the JTF concluded that, with the proper awareness initiatives and focus, one combined organization has a far better opportunity to overcome the above concerns (some of which exist under the present system) than two separate organizations that are often in competition and acting independently.

Benefits of One Regulatory Organization

A number of positive benefits of one organization were also identified: 

• the development of consistent standards of practice common to all grades of members;
• greater professional status, and thus enhanced public protection, through increased accountability by all engineering and geoscience team members;
• opportunity to place greater reliance on technologist team members;
• greater influence with industry and government as one voice speaking for all;
• creation of a well-defined ladder for progression through the proposed grades of membership.

Defining Technology and Scope of Practice

For some, the most controversial aspect of an amalgamation of the two bodies under one Act is defining the practice of technology and the scope of practice that would be granted to registered technologists. The definition (not yet endorsed by Council) in the present proposal mirrors the current definition of professional engineering, as most agree that engineering technology is a subset of engineering.

The proposed definition of technology goes beyond the current definitions of engineering and geoscience. It establishes a scope of practice for technologists by defining limitations on the work that can be undertaken by a technologist working within his or her education, experience and training; namely:

• any work, providing it is under the supervision of a P.Eng, P.Geo or Limited License holder; or 
• any work, without supervision, where the technologist is applying published codes and standards in conformance with generally accepted engineering principles and within practice guidelines established by Council.

The JTF is confident that this definition and scope of practice appropriately defines the field of technology, incorporates the appropriate limitations on technologist practice, and forms the basis for including technologists in a revised Act.

Information Sessions Around BC

Over the next four months, numerous presentations on the APEGBC/ASTTBC amalgamation proposal will be conducted around the province to give members an opportunity to learn more about the specifics, debate the issues and provide their suggestions for consideration.

Following this information and proposal refinement phase, a member referendum will be conducted in May 2003. If APEGBC members endorse the plan, the enabling amendments to the Act will be formally submitted to the Minister of Advanced Education with a request that it be taken forward for the necessary legislative approval in the spring 2004 sitting of the legislature. For a schedule of upcoming information sessions, please visit the APEGBC website.

© Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland