July 2008 Issue
President’s Notebook
More About Mobility
Professionals face a licensure challenge when they work — often for short periods — in multiple Canadian jurisdictions. Is the creation of a national,
multi-jurisdiction licence a realistic way to address the situation?
BY GORDON WILLIAMS, P.GEOL.
APEGGA President
It would appear that, regardless of the additional convenience and reduced risk of enforcement, if the cost of a multi-jurisdictional licence was higher than about twice the cost of licensing in the home jurisdiction, most geoscientists would
opt for either the status quo of taking out separate licences or accepting the risk of being non-compliant.
The term “mobility” as applied to professional licensure is commonly used in at least two ways. First, it refers to the ability of a professional licensed in one province or territory to become licensed in another, quickly and with minimal additional effort. This is more accurately considered “transferability,” which is the essence of the two Inter-Association Mobility Agreements that APEGGA has entered into, one for engineers and a similar one for geoscientists. I wrote about current problems with these IAMAs in my last column.
Second, mobility is also used by some to refer to an arrangement that would permit a professional licensed in one province or territory to practice, perhaps for a limited time, in another province or territory without having to become licensed in the second jurisdiction — much in the same way that someone with a driver’s licence in one province can drive in another (temporarily) without immediately having to take out a new licence.
This second type of temporary-practice mobility is of particular interest to geoscientists, although engineers are increasingly interested in the concept. In the course of their work, either for a company or as a consultant, many professionals are required to work outside the jurisdiction where they are licensed, often on very short notice and for short periods.
The cost of maintaining multiple licen-ces on the chance that work in another jurisdiction might materialize is considerable. Even when an out-of-province project is obtained, some practitioners are reluctant to pass on the costs of obtaining a licence to their clients.
Delays in obtaining a licence by transfer often mean that short-term, high-priority projects have been completed before the process is complete.
These considerations are often cited as hindrances to becoming licensed in more than one jurisdiction, with the result that an unknown but probably significant number of practitioners “bootleg” by practicing illegally outside their jurisdiction of residence.
The concept of a national multi-jurisdictional licence has periodically been proposed as a solution to the twin problems of cost and convenience.
In 2003, a study for the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists was carried out to investigate the feasibility of establishing a multi-jurisdictional licence for geoscientists. Data used by the CCPG study’s authors were imprecise at best and based on untestable assumptions, but some broad conclusions appear to be reasonable. Although the study focused on geoscientists, some applicability to engineers can probably be derived from it.
The proportion of non-resident licences issued varies widely among jurisdictions from less than 10 per cent to more than 70 per cent of total licences. Several associations depend for their survival on revenue derived from licensing out-of-province/territory professionals, and losing these funds would seriously impact their continued viability and ability to effectively protect the public. Any multi-jurisdictional licence would have to take this financial reality into consideration.
Comparing the numbers of non-resident licences issued by CCPG member associations with estimates by their executive directors of the probable numbers of non-residents actually practicing in their province/territory suggests that only about 25 per cent of geoscientists who practice outside their home province or territory actually take out a licence in the outside jurisdiction. Low compliance seems to be the norm, but is clearly unacceptable.
The study concluded that a multi-jurisdictional licence would be attractive to geoscientists for some combination of three reasons: increased convenience (efficiency), reduced risk of enforcement action (doing the right thing), and reduced cost.
Based on the high rate of non-compliance estimated above, the study authors assumed that geoscientists will be highly cost-sensitive when considering a multi-jurisdictional licensing option. Using an average annual dues rate of $250, the authors concluded that between 20 per cent and 45 per cent of the approximately 1,200 geoscientists who currently register in more than one jurisdiction would be attracted by a national licence if it was priced at approximately $500 over and above the cost of registering in the home jurisdiction. This translates into approximately 240 to 540 individuals.
A national licence priced at $750 above the cost of registering in the home jurisdiction would attract only five per cent to 11 per cent of the geoscientists who currently register in more than one jurisdiction, or 60 to 130 individuals.
It would appear that, regardless of the additional convenience and reduced risk of enforcement, if the cost of a multi-jurisdictional licence was higher than about twice the cost of licensing in the home jurisdiction, most geoscientists would opt for either the status quo of taking out separate licences or accepting the risk of being non-compliant.
With a small number of individuals opting for a multi-jurisdictional licence, it also appears that the fee revenue generated and redistributed among the licensing associations would not compensate them for the lost revenue currently obtained from licensing non-resident practitioners.
The need to strike a balance among costs to the individual, revenue to the licensing associations and the number of professionals opting for it appears to make a national multi-jurisdictional licence impractical at this time.
I would appreciate receiving your comments or suggestions. Please get in touch with me at president@apegga.org.
It would appear that, regardless of the additional convenience and reduced risk of enforcement, if the cost of a multi-jurisdictional licence was higher than about twice the cost of licensing in the home jurisdiction, most geoscientists would opt for either the status quo of taking out separate licences or accepting the risk of being non-compliant.
|
CHATTING WITH PRESTON |
