Are All Mobile Geoscientists Well Represented by their Self Regulating Organizations? PDAC's-IOG Mobility Study Results Are In!
George Wahl, P.Geo.
Seven out of 12 self regulatory association interviewees say no to mobility being an issue for geoscientists, while 84.3% of geoscientists surveyed report being dissatisfied.
The PDAC (Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada) recently disclosed the results of the Institute of Governance (IOG) study on mobility for geoscientists. A full copy of the study as well as descriptions of the survey sample size and methodologies are available the following sites: http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/advocacy/geosciences/0603-geoscience-mobility-working-paper.pdf and http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/advocacy/geosciences/0604-geoscience-mobility-survey-report.pdf
The following is an excerpt of the IOG study results:
"A major part of the research for the present working paper comprised interviews with representatives from the Self Regulating Organizations (SROs). The interviewees were the presidents, executive directors and SRO representatives on the Board of the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists (CCPG). Some of these interviewees were engineers and some were geoscientists, however, on at least one occasion, an interviewee explained that he got his degree as an engineer but was now a practicing geoscientist. Also, the responses from the interviewees were not determined by their profession - that is, some engineers gave responses more sympathetic to the problems of geoscientists than some of the geoscientists gave.
The interviewees were asked if mobility is an issue for geoscientists in Canada. Specifically, they were asked if the present regulatory framework allows free mobility of geoscientists, or if it needs to be changed. All of the interviewees admitted that there were various kinds of difficulties for at least some geoscientists. Nevertheless, their responses can be divided into arguments for and against changing the present system to address mobility. The "No" side claimed that mobility is not an issue requiring a change to the current regulatory framework and gave various reasons to support this claim. The "Yes" side claimed that mobility is a major problem for a number of reasons and that this problem needs to be dealt with. (Field Notes will examine the Yes and No arguments by the SRO interviewees in a future article).
Of the 12 interviews, 7 said "No" and 5 said "Yes." Some of these interviewees were more definite in their responses, and some gave qualified responses. That is, some of the people who said "No" followed this response by explaining that, nevertheless, there were difficulties that had to be mitigated. Likewise, some of the people who said, "Yes, mobility is a problem," followed this by saying, "However, it is being taken care of by the associations."
The Institute on Governance also undertook a study of 270 geoscientists to see whether mobility was a significant issue. The results are as follows:
"The vast majority of respondents (84.3%) report being dissatisfied with the interprovincial/territorial mobility afforded by Canada's registration system, with nearly three in five being "extremely dissatisfied".
The vast majority of respondents report working the most days in the past 12 months in their home province. However, 72.2 percent report also working in at least one location outside of their home province. This includes nearly 30 percent of the respondent sample reporting work outside of Canada, but also large numbers reporting work in Canada but outside of their home province."
It is also interesting to note that in the recent June 2006 Canadian Geoscience Council meeting hosted by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists in Calgary, the Canadian Geoscience Council representing most geoscience groups from across Canada made the following unanimous statement:
A motion was unanimously passed to indicate support for CCPG efforts to break down existing barriers to the mobility of registered professional geoscientists, to allow for unimpeded practice of professional geoscientists between provincial and territorial jurisdictions as expressed in the Intergovernmental Agreement on Internal Trade.
It would appear from the IOG study that there is little support for significant changes on mobility among CCPG members. That such a large disconnect between self regulating organizations and their mobile geoscience constituents exists likely explains the difficulty APGO, PDAC along with a few other vocal SRO's have had in promoting fluid mobility with the other self regulating bodies on behalf of Canadian geoscientists.
The disconnect between self regulating organizations and their geoscience constituents is expressed in many different ways. For example there exists a continuing sense of disenfranchisement of geoscientists with their respective SRO's. In Alberta, which represents the longest standing joint engineering/geoscience SRO in Canada, the problem is highlighted by a widespread refusal to register. A 2002 KPMG study found that 41% of geoscientists practicing in Alberta were not registered.
When discussing mobility at CCPG, most geoscientists and a few mobile engineers speak of mobility in terms of practicing across Canada without filling out endless forms, writing additional exams, applying for differing membership categories, various fees and anniversary dates, dealing with differing CPD requirements, etc. for each jurisdiction. Many geoscientists understand the word mobility to mean the ability to freely practice geoscience across Canada under a one-stop coordinated multi-jurisdictional licensing system which respects the legal requirements of each jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, a majority of the joint engineering/geoscience SRO community use the term mobility to refer to those practitioners who pick up and move her or his family to a different jurisdiction with a minimal amount of the paperwork involved in obtaining a new license. It fails to account for those geoscientists carrying out property evaluations across Canada on short notice or those working on multiple projects in multi-jurisdictions in any given year involving the maintenance of multiple licenses. There continues to be a serious disconnect in the underlying understanding of the practical differences in the form of mobile practice and in the basic language used to discuss the mobility of geoscientists at CCPG. The issue is not geoscience specific, it also affects many mining, environmental, processing, telecommunications and software engineers who have also lobbied unsuccessfully for changes which reflect their practice.
There is also anecdotal evidence of the disconnect between practitioners and their SRO's. Feedback I have heard from some geoscientists from joint engineering/geoscience jurisdictions is that they don't feel part of a system that is dominated by non-geoscience members on Boards, Discipline, Complaints and Compliance Committees. A surprising number of these committees across Canada struggle to find a single geoscientist to sit on these non-geoscience dominated committees. Most mobile engineers and geoscientists because of the very nature of their mobile practice are unable to participate in these committees and thus are often unable to participate and effectively influence mobility policy discussions.
This disconnect is also revealed in SRO governance structures. In many joint SRO's, the CCPG geoscience representative is appointed and directed by what is predominantly a non-geoscience and non-mobile council unfamiliar with the form of mobility practiced by many of their geoscientists and engineers. Section 6.7 - Director of CCPG Terms of Reference of the Newfoundland (PEG) Governance Policy (http://www.pegnl.ca/documents/document_25.pdf) gives some insight as to who the CCPG Geoscience Director from Newfoundland is actually representing:
1. Purpose/Product:
1.1 The CCPG Director represents PEG on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists (CCPG).
1.2 The CCPG Director is required to raise with PEG all subjects to be discussed at CCPG and to seek input from PEG Council when taking positions on issues which are believed to impact on the activities of PEG or the policies that guide the operation of PEG.
2. Authority:
2.1 The CCPG Director must present and defend, at any and all meetings of CCPG Board of Directors for which the Director is in attendance, the positions of PEG Council. For all issues that will have an impact on the activities of PEG or the policies that guide the operation of PEG the views presented and votes placed by the Director at CCPG meetings must be in conformity with the expressed decisions of Council. In cases where Council has not taken an expressed view or where the issue does not have a strong impact on this jurisdiction, the Director may vote in conscience.
3. Composition:
3.1 The Director shall be a geoscientist appointed by Council, who preferably is a past councillor of PEG. Alternatively the Director can be a current Councillor or a member who is actively involved in PEG matters through their position on PEG committees.
Although he or she is a geoscientist, the CCPG Geoscience Director from a joint association is appointed by and obligated to represent the views of the largest constituency who happen to be predominantly both non-mobile and non-geoscientists. In Newfoundland geoscientists only comprise less than 10 percent of the SRO. Like most joint SRO's, it is unlikely that in a governance structure requiring a majority vote to pass a motion that the mobility issue, if it differed from the majority, would ever find its way to becoming a Council policy or position. In light of the governance structure, the PDAC IOG survey results on CCPG interviewees against mobility are not surprising.
Finally, if the Canadian Geoscience Council can pass a unanimous motion on geoscience mobility in a single meeting, it is especially disappointing that after four years the CCPG still fails to pass a single motion to facilitate a form of mobility which reflects the current mobile and incidental practice of many Canadian geoscientists and engineers.
I believe it is possible for joint SRO's to work effectively on behalf of their mobile engineering and geoscience constituents. A vast majority of the issues within joint SRO's are common to all constituency groups. There are, however, the occasional situation where significant differences with some minority constituency groups which require joint SRO Presidents and Councils to take steps to include and understand these minority groups and respond with regulations which accommodate their very unique set of circumstances.
|
print
this page