review-thinking

From 2015 to 2017, there were nearly 50 recommendations that were brought before APEGA's Council for consideration. These have been organized into categories for easier navigation. Select a category below to see each set of recommendations and Council's position on each.

Council, Registrar, and Statutory Entities   Disciplinary Process   Membership Categories   Professional Practice

Authority of Practice Reviewers

Recommendation

APEGA practice reviewers to be the authority to conduct practice reviews similar to the authority contained in the ASET Regulation the Professional Technologists Regulation or the Chartered Professional Accountants Act, Alberta.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Building Code Exemptions

Recommendation

Repeal the Building Code exemptions in sections 2(6) & (7) the EGP Act to avoid duplication in demand side legislation; and have the EGP Act reference the Alberta Building Code as the sole source for relevant exemptions.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Improving Professional Practice

Recommendation

To clarify the role and responsibility of the Practice Review Committee to focus on the competency of the professions by:

  • Establishing practice standards and bulletins approved by Council that members and permit holders must comply with
  • Clarifying the role and authority of the practice reviewers and that they can make recommendations based on the outcome of a review
  • Practice reviewers can refer matters to a practice review panel, the Investigative Committee or the Registrar
  • Clarifying the authority of practice review panels and the types of orders they can make

Council's Position

Council Amendment to the Recommendation: Council endorsed all recommendations with one exception: the decision of the practice review panel will be open to appeal

Criteria will be developed through Council Regulation and Policy to define when and how these recommendations will be used

Permit to Practice

Recommendation

  • add a definition for Responsible Member to indicate that the responsible member must be a professional member and must have a sufficiently close relationship with the permit holder to undertake the roles and responsibilities associated with acting as a Responsible Member.
  • clarify that, in addition to the existing requirements for Responsible Member, their responsibilities are expanded to explicitly include:
    • being professionally responsible for the Professional Practice Management Plan (PPMP) and for ensuring it is being followed
    • stamping, signing, and dating the PPMP document within their area of responsibility
  • clarify that a deficiency in a PPMP (or evidence that a PPMP is not being followed) may result in a practice review order or a finding of unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct against the Responsible Member, collectively or individually, and against the permit holder.
  • change the requirement from needing only one Responsible Member to needing one or more Responsible Members, as appropriate to the practice
  • move the requirement for a Responsible Member to attend a seminar every five years from the General Regulation to part of the mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program requirements for Responsible Members. The details will be described in the CPD program.
  • require permit holders and Responsible Members to advise APEGA if an existing Responsible Member ceases to be the person accepting responsibility for the practice of the permit holder or can no longer provide the necessary certification regarding the PPMP
  • require a sole practitioner to obtain a Permit to Practice.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

Council endorses the proposed recommendations that the legislation be amended to explicitly:

  • authorize practice review panels, rather than Council, to be the decision maker and consider applications for registration of permit holders in accordance with the legislation and criteria approved by Council.
  • authorize practice reviewers to evaluate the appropriateness of an applicant’s PPMP and whether it can and will be properly implemented and to make recommendations to practice review panels.
  • authorize practice review panels to perform the following actions (in accordance with criteria approved by Council): approve the application with or without conditions and restrictions; or refuse the application
  • grant an applicant the right to appeal a decision to the Appeal Committee.
  • indicate that in addition to the other requirements, an applicant must satisfy the practice review panel that it has a PPMP that is appropriate to its professional practice and that it can and will be properly implemented, in accordance with criteria approved by Council.
  • authorize the Practice Review Committee to delegate to the Registrar’s office the ability to review applications for registration as a permit holder and make recommendations to practice review panels, in accordance with criteria approved by Council.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

Council endorses, the proposed recommendation that the EGP Act and General Regulation be amended to remove all references to reinstatement and to require that a permit holder whose registration has been cancelled, for any reason, initiate re-registration the same as any other applicant in accordance with criteria approved by Council.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Practice Prohibitions

Note: As a result of the 2018 mediation discussions between APEGA and ASET, revisions were made to the practice prohibition recommendations arising from the spring 2017 stakeholder consultations. The revisions were made to enhance public protection and further clarify the guiding principles surrounding practice prohibitions for APEGA licensed professionals and permit holders as well as ASET professional technologists and permit holders.

Recommendation (Spring 2017)

Council endorses the proposed recommendation that the EGP Act and General Regulation be amended to clarify that the existing practice prohibition sections only apply to members and permit holders whose licences or permits have been suspended or cancelled because of disciplinary or practice review proceedings.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation (2018)

Amend the Act by deleting sections 97(1), (2), (3); 86.3(1)&(2); and 95.1(1) and replacing them with a new section that captures the guiding principles below:

  • No licensed professional or permit holder who has been suspended or cancelled for disciplinary or practice review reasons shall practice engineering or geoscience from the date of the suspension or cancellation until the suspension ends or the registration is reinstated, unless a discipline or practice review order states otherwise. 
  • An individual who has been cancelled as a result of a disciplinary process or practice review process and who wishes to be reinstated shall, unless a discipline or practice review order states otherwise, follow the reinstatement process as laid out in Row 48 and R18. Under this process, the decision maker on reinstatement will be the APEGA Registration Committee for APEGA licensed professionals, and the Joint Registration Committee for ASET licensed professionals. 
  • A permit holder who has been cancelled as a result of a disciplinary process or practice review process and who wishes to be reinstated shall, unless a discipline or practice review order states otherwise, follow the reinstatement process as laid out in Row 102. Under this process, the decision maker on reinstatement will be the APEGA practice review panels for former APEGA permit holders and joint practice review panels for former ASET permit holders. These principles apply to cross-over situations as well. A cancelled or suspended APEGA licensed professional or permit holder should not be able to circumvent that suspension or cancellation by simply working under the supervision of an ASET licensed professional or ASET permit holder. And the reverse also holds true, a cancelled or suspended ASET licensed professional or permit holder should not be able to circumvent that suspension or cancellation by simply working under the supervision of an APEGA licensed professional or APEGA permit holder.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Refining the Continuing Professional Development Program

Recommendation

  • as previously addressed in the winter 2016 consultations, the Practice Review Committee (PRC) will have the responsibility to develop, and Council will have the authority to approve, the requirements for the CPD program and supporting practice standards
  • the obligation for keeping CPD records and how members meet the requirements of the program will be described in CPD policies
  • the Registrar will be able to strike a member from the register for non-compliance with the CPD program
  • the assessment of whether a member meets the CPD requirements will be conducted by the PRC through practice reviewers and practice review panels as described in the winter 2016 consultations related to the PRC
  • Council may impose an administrative assessment fee if a member does not comply with the CPD program within specified timelines
  • the requirement for Responsible Members to attend a Permit to Practice seminar every five years will be moved out of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act  General Regulation and into the requirements of the CPD program and supporting practice standard

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Updating Authentication Practices

Recommendation

  • stamp: an instrument issued by APEGA to a professional member or permit holder in any form or medium, as set out by the Registrar.
  • authentication: the application of a professional member’s stamp, signature, and date together with a permit holder’s stamp to a professional document.
  • professional document: an engineering or geoscience file in any form or medium and further clarified through a practice standard:
    • contains technical information resulting from the practice of engineering or geoscience
    • is complete for an intended purpose and will be relied upon by others.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

  • remove references to embossing seals as part of the authentication process
  • explicitly clarify that all professional documents must be authenticated by licensed members and permit holders regardless of whether the engineering or geoscience services related to those documents were performed inside or outside of Alberta
  • make it an offence for any person to knowingly employ or retain an unlicensed individual or other entity to provide engineering or geoscience services unless the person hiring the unlicensed individual or other entity reviews, authenticates, and takes responsibility for that work
    • indicate that the court may order fines payable for such violations up to $100,000 maximum for individuals and $500,000 maximum for other entities (these dollar amounts are consistent with other proposed fines).

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council