|
______________________
BY NEIL WINDSOR, P.ENG.
Executive Director and Registrar
______________________ |
 |
The ongoing debate concerning the proposed inclusivity initiative
has caught the attention and imagination of a large number
of members and has given Council an excellent opportunity
to engage in meaningful dialogue with members on a matter
of significant importance to our professions. Input such
as this has been all too infrequent and Council is hopeful
that this current high level of interest in the affairs of
the association will continue. The consultation and communication
program that will be carried out over the next few months
will be a model that can be followed to a greater or lesser
degree for other matters in the future, depending on the
importance and complexity of the issue at hand.
Council has diligently sought input and given much consideration
to the inclusivity proposal over the past year. The result
is a concept designed to make the association more inclusive
of practitioners who have the qualifications and experience
to practice the professions in some form and within a defined
or limited scope of practice, much the same as Registered
Professional Technologists (R.P.T.) do. As is the normal
practice for such issues involving the licensure process,
this matter has now been formally referred to the Board of
Examiners for their review and comment. A delegation of Council
will be meeting with the Board at their annual meeting in
mid-June to discuss the proposal in detail and to provide
more insight to the Board on what Council has proposed. In
due course the Board will report back to Council with their
recommendations and Council will consider this carefully
before determining how to move forward from there. Clearly
the views of the members are paramount and the consultation
and communication process will ensure that there is ample
opportunity for stakeholders to be informed on all the facts
and to provide input to Council.
Recently staff conducted a small e-mail survey of randomly
selected members for the information of Council and to consider
at the annual retreat. We thank the nearly 700 members who
responded for their valuable input to the process. As expected
it showed that roughly one third of members who participated
are in favor of the proposal, one-third are opposed and one-third
are undecided. Even though it showed that 85% of members
are now aware of this issue it confirms the need for much
more consultation before proceeding further.
The numbers are interesting and show slightly more support
from geoscientists. Based on all respondents, 35% support
the proposal while 36% do not, and 29% are undecided. Replies
from engineers suggest that 34% support and 37% do not with
29% undecided, while geoscientists indicate that 48% support
and 22% do not with 30% undecided.
Asked in what format members would like to receive future
information respondents favored e-mail, the PEGG and the
website with a smaller number favoring a brochure and a very
small number favoring town hall meetings. All this information
will be valuable for Council in deciding how best to proceed
with this issue as it unfolds. One thing is clear, the consultation
and communication process will be thorough, transparent and
responding fully to the concerns and advice of all stakeholders.
This initiative is very important to all members and your
continued input as we move forward is of great importance
and value.
|
