(letter to the Editor of Engineering Dimensions, May-June, 2010)
As a student of professional regulation, I read with interest Michael Mastromatteo’s insightful article entitled “New era for self-regulation about to unfold” in Engineering Dimensions (November/December 2009, p. 26). There can be no doubt that the regulatory landscape in which PEO operates is changing, and that PEO must consider how it will adapt to external pressures like those cited in the article. But I would not want anyone to conclude from the article that professional self-regulation as we know it in Ontario is doomed.
In his research and book Death of the Guilds, Professor Krause did not consider Canada’s self-regulating professions. Had he done so, I believe he would have found that our system is the strongest in the world in terms of professional autonomy. This is at least partly because our professions are not “guilds” in which professional self-interest is dominant, but rather delegated regulatory authorities in which the public interest is dominant. I think ours is actually a very good regulatory model for professions, with the potential to provide much better public protection at much lower cost than the models prevalent in other jurisdictions.
I’m not suggesting that we don’t need to be concerned about external pressures that threaten our self-regulatory status. As Richard Steinecke has noted, and as our own experience with the building code certification issue confirmed, governments are all too eager to intervene whenever they perceive a public issue with professional regulation. As I see it, one reason that the medical profession’s independence is in jeopardy is its failure to deal effectively with medical malpractice. The argument seems to be that, given our shortage of doctors, it is better for the public to have access to an incompetent or unprofessional doctor than none at all. And a member of the bar in a recent published article has questioned why lawyers should be permitted to regulate themselves given their (the law societies’) track record of protecting the public against legal malpractice.
So how should we respond to these realities?
Well, the system may not be working perfectly, but I have trouble believing that a system of direct government regulation would work any better. And I happen to think we in engineering are doing a somewhat better job of self-regulation than our colleagues in law and medicine. The clear message for the professions is that, rather than waiting to be thrown out with the bathwater, we should make it a priority to ensure we are doing the best possible job we can for the public in the discharge of our regulatory mandate.
The other important point that the article makes is that we need to make sure the public understands what a good deal they’re getting, i.e. the value proposition inherent in professional self-regulation. In this regard, we actually need to distance ourselves from government to avoid the taint of widespread public mistrust of government and its democratic institutions. We need to highlight our independence of government (that’s the biggest piece of the value proposition) by offering clear policy directions unencumbered by partisan considerations, and by taking the initiative to resolve problems within our sphere of influence without waiting for government intervention.
The bottom line is this: Our self-regulatory status is not in jeopardy if we are prepared to defend and strengthen it. It is ours to lose through neglect!
George R. Comrie, P.Eng., CMC
Etobicoke, ON
PEO president (2004-2005)