The debate around some sort of “continuing competence” requirement for PEO members to retain their licences to practise has been simmering (and occasionally bursting into flames) for years. A proposal in the late 1990s to establish a mandatory system of continuing education credits met with stiff opposition from members on the grounds that its “one size fits all” approach amounted to window dressing and did little to assure competence of practitioners. Fortunately, most professional engineers take their responsibility to remain competent seriously.
In the spring of 2004, Councillors agreed at their annual retreat to implement a mandatory “annual report of the member” similar to that required of members of Ontario’s legal profession. The idea was that a necessary starting point for understanding requirements for continuing competence was for PEO to know what specific engineering practices its members are engaged in, and are claiming competence in. To date, the annual report of the member has not been implemented.
Almost a year ago now, Council passed a resolution requiring members to attest on an annual basis (with their membership fee renewal) to their continuing competence, but without indicating how, or in what scopes of practice. Listening to the constructive and thoughful debate at the time, I sensed that there was agreement on more than what was eventually passed.
I believe that this issue will continue to attract attention, both within our profession and externally. Most professions have in place some form of continuing competence or continuing education requirement that must be met by their licensees. Engineering will continue to face pressure from government and the public to follow suit.
I believe there is general agreement on the following principles:
- Professional engineers, like all self-regulating professionals, have a legislated responsibility to undertake only that work for which they are competent. This of course implies that they must know what constitutes competence - and keep themselves current with respect to knowledge, skill, and standards of practice - within their particular scopes of practice.
- PEO is in the competency assurance business. As the regulator of engeering in Ontario, it is reasonable for PEO to ask its licenses to attest and to demonstrate that they are competent throughout their practising careers, just as they had to do at the time of their initial licensure.
- Whatever PEO requires of its licensees in terms of continuing competence, it must be relevant in terms of indicating competence within the scope of practice and level of responsibility of the individual licensee. In other words, it should not be simply “window dressing”, designed to fool the public into believing that the licensee must be competent because he/she has completed a certain number of professional development activities. Essentially, competence indicators should be related more to outcome (competence) than to process (continuing education).
- Because the field of engineering is so broad and encompasses such a variety of different professional activites, a “one-size-fits-all-approach” will not likely be possible. Depending on what a licensee does by way of practice, what he or she has to do to demonstrate contuiniing competence may vary.
I further believe that the mandatory annual report initiative established by Council in 2004 should be implemented as a priority. With minimal impact on the member, this will provide a useful information base on enginering practice in Ontario, and will preclude the criticism that PEO cannot be regulating effectively when it does not know which of its licensees are practising within a given scope of practice.