Proposed Changes for Human Resources Professionals Reintroduced
On December 7, 2011, Bill 28, The Registered Human Resources Professionals Association Act, 2011 was reintroduced in the Ontario Legislature (formerly Bill 138). This time, by representatives from all three political parties: David Zimmer, MPP, Christine Elliott, MPP and Michael Prue, MPP. The aim of the Bill remains to create a new public act governing HRPA and its members making the HRPA a true regulatory body much like those governing accountants and lawyers. We examined the previous Bill (which is similar to the new Bill) on Slaw here.
The Bill would repeal the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario Act, 1990 and enact the “Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2011” to:
- provide a framework for membership in the Association.
- prohibit the use of specified designations and initials by unauthorized individuals or entities.
- set out procedures for dealing with complaints against the Association’s members and establishes a disciplinary process.
- authorize practice inspections.
- establish procedures for determining whether a member of the Association is incapacitated and provides the capacity committee with the power to take steps to address any incapacity in so far as it affects a member’s practice.
- provide for the appointment of investigators and inspectors to conduct investigations and inspections under the Act, and sets out their powers.
According to the HRPA, the single provision that is generating the most comment is the power to enter work premises without warrant or court order in the context of carrying out investigations. The HRPA states that this provision is common place and exist for all regulated profession in Ontario without exception. This power is intended to be used if there is reasonable and probable grounds that an HRPA member has committed an act of professional misconduct.
Over the next few months, HRPA will be engaging members by:
- Creating a dedicated website that will provide members with comprehensive information about the act (backgrounders, FAQs, etc.). The website, www.hrpaact.ca, was launched on December 9th, 2011.
- Hosting local Chapter “Town Hall” meetings and webinars.
- Providing an information session at the annual HRPA conference in February 2012.
- Communicating regular status updates on the new act.
The HRPA states:
The new act, for which HRPA has been lobbying over the past couple of years, will enhance the credibility of the profession, support our members’ careers and clarify the regulatory powers to oversee what’s evolved into a true profession requiring protection of the public.
Re the provision that is ‘generating the most comment’, the ability to come into members’ workplaces without a warrant, which the Association says is universal among similar statutes, I have two comments:
First, this kind of provision is common among regulatory bodies where there is a monopoly of practice, i.e. no one can practise the occupation without a licence and without being regulated. The HRPAO is not a regulatory body and it has only a monopoly of title. Anyone can be a human resource professional, but only members of HRPAO can use the protected titles that it gives out. HRPOA has no duty to control its members’ activities in the public interest. No ministry of government has any oversight over its actions. This is completely different from professional bodies like physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineeers, etc.
HRPAO likes to note the laws about accounting bodies passed in 2010. It was noted in the last thread of comments about the bill, cited by Yosie above, that they were given such powers because they have, or in the case of CMAs are likely soon to have, regulatory authority over public accountants, i.e. auditors, that do need a licence to practice. They did not have similar powers when they were purely private bodies governing only the use of their title by their members.
Second, most human resource professionals are probably employed somewhere, rather than being freelance. Thus HRPAO’s new power, if the bill passes as it is, could be exercised by barging into the members’ employers’ workplaces and looking at the employers’ files. Is that likely to be acceptaable to employers? Did the bills’ sponsors ever consider that? (Answer in both cases: almost certainly not.)
Great comments Fritz.
In my experiences in dealing with the HRPAO, I have found that they would probably be incapable of handling this new power if this Bill did pass.
When I was a member, any concern I raised was often met with bullying/intimidation tactics – not what any paying member should have to deal with.
I left the HRPAO last year and was grateful Bill 138 didn’t pass. I would encourage anyone who is opposed to this legislation (should be about everyone) to contact their MPP.
Alternatively, the HRPAO seem to be like a dog with a bone with this legislation. If you truly don’t want to be impacted, join another provincial association as I did.
Any HR professional that is not a member of HRPA will not be regulated by this proposed Act. There are thousands of HR professionals who are not members of HRPA and who will not join this organization. Many, including myself, left HRPA as we do not believe that the powers being sought in this act are necessary and that they will not be properly and professionally administered.
Powers of investigation are linked to the obligation to promote and protect the public interest and not licensure. Self-regulating professional bodies are granted broad regulatory powers because they are required to act in the public interest and not because they are licensing bodies. Should Bill 28 to become law, HRPA would also be required by law to promote and protect the public interest.
In regards to licensing in the accounting professions, as of December 19, 2011, the number of public accounting licensees that are active and qualified to practice is 4713 for ICAO, 16 for CGAO, and 0 for CMAO. This would mean that about 7.37% of CAs, .34% of CGAs, and 0% of CMA are active and qualified to practice public accounting. And yet, the accounting acts of 2010 do not limit investigation powers to licensed members, they apply to all members.
Human Resources professionals are similar to CMAs in that most are “employed somewhere, rather than being freelance” (although the proportion of practitioners in independent practice is greater for Human Resources professionals than for CMAs). As I understand it, CMAO’s new power could be exercised by “barging into the members’ employers’ workplace and looking at their employers’ files.” This doesn’t seem to have been an issue for the CMAs.
By the way, there are no provisions for ministerial oversight in accounting acts of 2010.
the key is that they are ‘members’