The Honourable A.V. Fraser
Ministry of Transportation and Highways
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia
VBV 1X4

Dear Mr. Fraser:

Re: Proposed Engineers & Geologists Act

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has had the opportunity to review a draft of the above-noted Act proposed to replace the Engineers Act, R.S.B.C. 1979.

In general, the Association supports the enactment of the legislation because it is likely to make the actions of Geologists and Engineers more accountable to the public. We are particularly in favour of section 46 of the proposed Act, which provides for formal hearings to be held in public as a means of counteracting the opinion held by some members of the public that self-regulating professions do not effectively police their members.

We also support the proposed Act because it provides a substantial measure of due process protection to the member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geologists against whom a complaint is made. For example, we note that section 38(2) provides for notice of formal hearing to the member, that a member has a right to be represented by counsel [Section 39(1)], that a member required to attend a hearing has the right to require the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents via a request to the Managing Director [Section 42(3)], and finally that the member has a right of appeal to the Supreme Court [Section 48(1)].

However, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association is concerned that, with respect to the production of documents, the power of the Managing Director under section 37(3) and section 42(5) is too broad. At the very least, this power should be restricted to documents related to, or relevant to, the matter under investigation. Furthermore, the Act should specify that the member has a right to claim that a document is privileged from production, especially if the member and complainant are involved in civil proceedings regarding the matter under investigation. Finally, if a member objects to the production of any given document, a Court should decide on the validity of the objection, rather than empowering the Association to seek attachment on application to the Court. These protections are provided to parties involved in civil disputes (see B.C. Supreme Court Rule Number 26) and, as the tenor of the proposed Act is to provide due process protections to a member involved in the disciplinary process, there seems to be no rationale sufficient to justify the abrogation of rights in the area of production of documents.

We appreciate your consideration of our submission.

Yours truly,

John Dixon
President