 Alright, hi everybody. My name is Kate Haynes. I'm a director with the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance and my colleague is here as well. Good morning, Rebecca Friedman. I'm also a director with the office. So we have been conducting substantial engagement since January, just before the Professional Governance Act came into force. And we've developed this presentation to address a number of audiences, both industry registrants, ministry staff, local governments, indigenous nations, hopefully wherever you're coming from, there's something in here for you. Despite the fact that we don't have a live audience today, I think you'll see that we've worked really hard to incorporate sort of the feedback and questions we've received over the past few months to make this as proactive as possible and covering any questions you might have. And we have actually popped in specifically a few sort of mock question and answer periods that where you'll see some of the questions that were frequently asked. So without further ado, carry on. So today we're going to start with an overview of professional governance as it relates to our office and the natural resources and built environments in British Columbia. Then we'll dig a bit further into the regulatory framework of the PGA itself, including a discussion of practice rights. Then we're going to dive into a discussion of two new things that have been introduced with the Professional Governance Act coming into force, which are a statutory duty to report, as well as a requirement for firms to register as registrants. Finally, we'll close with a discussion of our planned operations for our next year and a discussion of our standards of good regulation, which we'll be using to evaluate the performance of regulatory bodies under the PGA. So just so that everybody knows who we are and what the Professional Governance Act is, both the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance or OSPG as well as the Professional Governance Act or PGA were established in response to 2018's Professional Reliance Review. This was a mandate commitment from Foreign Minister Heyman from Ministry of Environment in the 2017 government. It was also a requirement of the Confidence and Supply Agreement with the Green Caucus, and Mark Haddock conducted a review of five regulatory bodies and came up with many recommendations in respect of professional reliance. So Professional Reliance is a model that is commonly used in the natural resources sector in BC, where specific decisions will be assigned to a registered professional rather than a statutory decision maker within government. So we're relying on those professionals. There were many recommendations about professional reliance in response to specific regulatory frameworks of different decisions being made, but two of the recommendations that came out of that review were actually focused on professional governance. And those were the creation of the Professional Governance Act to create a common framework under which all of these regulated professions are operating and held accountable. And then secondly, the second recommendation was the creation of our office as an oversight office for those regulatory bodies that administer the professions. So, you know, our role is not necessarily with respect to specific decisions being made in a professional reliance framework in a given ministry or sector, but when those ministries call on professionals to make those decisions in their frameworks, our role is to ensure that those professionals are showing up, they're reliable, they're accountable to standards of professional and ethical conduct, and that we can have confidence in those professionals. So just a little bit more about us, the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance. We're a very small office under the Ministry of Attorney General. We have a superintendent, myself and Rebecca as directors, a number of policy analysts, and we do get a fair amount of business operations support actually from Justice Services branch as well. The positioning of us in Ministry of Attorney General rather than any of the other ministries that administer professional reliance schemes is to create some separation between those ministries that use professional reliance and then an oversight body that is overseeing the professional regulators. So why is professional regulation important? Self-regulation is a privilege that is granted through legislation to protect the public interest and specifically where a given profession could have an impact on the public interest. And when we think about civil engineering, for example, there's a very clear line of sight from the proper construction of buildings, having a potential risk to human health and safety. And it's important for those professionals to be properly regulated in order that we have confidence in the integrity of those buildings. But we also have the context in the natural environment as well as potential risk to the receiving environment. A good example of this is the incident that happened with the Mount Polly tailing storage facility that would indicate an importance of professionals working in the natural resources sector as well as putting that public interest first. So when these regulated professionals are part of one of these self-regulated professions, they now have an ethical and legal duty to put the interest of the public ahead of their own. Those regulated professionals may also be granted specific exclusive rights to practice a certain discipline or use a certain title. And this helps the public understand the layperson who needs some work done for a stewardship plan or on a building being built, who they can access, who is qualified to practice in those areas and will be held to those standards of accountability. So which professions are under the Professional Governance Act? Initially, when the Professional Governance Act was brought into force on February 5th, those five regulatory bodies that were part of the Professional Reliance Review are now under the PGA. So the Association of BC Forest Professionals, Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC, the BC Institute of Agrology, the College of Applied Biology and Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Coming soon will be the Architectural Institute of BC. They have been for a number of years seeking amendments to their statute for modernizing the Architects Act. And what government actually did was make a decision that it made better sense for that profession to come under the PGA rather than make those legislative updates. So the Architects Act has already been transferred to our Ministry for Administration and probably in about the next year the Institute will be coming on board officially under the PGA. So just some key messages up front about what stays the same and what's different under the PGA. Those five regulatory bodies will continue regulating and registering the same professionals they did prior under their former statutes. And registrants such as professional engineers, professional foresters, registered professional biologists, they will all continue to primarily act with their regulatory body. What's new is that those regulatory bodies, they're former, they've all formerly operated under individual statutes. Those acts have all now been repealed and they are all now operating under the Professional Governance Act. So that now has a common operating framework in terms of merit-based election processes for counselors, requirements for lay counselors, common standards of professional and ethical conduct, as well as a common system to address complaints and discipline of registrants. And then our office has this new oversight role to ensure that the regulatory bodies are operating in the public interest, and we'll talk a little bit later about the criteria that we'll be using to assess those regulatory bodies. But I guess a key message is that typically registrants will continue interacting with their regulatory bodies. OSPG will primarily interact with only the regulatory bodies. It will not be common that the OSPG would be directly interacting with registrants. So this is a question we typically get at this point in the presentation, which are why are some professions under the PGA and not others? The PGA is neutral as to what professions could be contained under it. There's nothing specific about the PGA that applies only to the natural resources sector and built environment sector, but the five regulatory bodies we have today just really reflect the fact that they were part of that professional reliance review that was initiated in 2017, and they are now the first to be under the PGA. We already have the example of the architects coming on board, and the PGA does provide for additional professions to be designated, new regulatory bodies to come under, regulatory bodies to be amalgamated, and that's something that as we build our work in the future, we'll certainly be looking as where it makes sense to bring additional professions under the PGA. So I'm going to talk now about just the governance structure and framework under the PGA. So starting with the statute, the PGA is enabling legislation. It provides authorities for the key structures and functions of the regulatory bodies, so that includes credentialing, new registrants, and setting standards of conduct and competence, and holding the registrants accountable through performance reviews and audits, and then carrying out any investigations and discipline in response to complaints as needed. The PGA also includes authorities for regulations to be set, and I'll talk a little bit about the regulations that are following under the PGA in a moment. I just wanted to mention, well we have brought most of the provisions of the PGA into force as of February 5th. There are a few provisions that relate to declarations that have not been brought into force. So the intent with those declarations provisions was for registrants to file a declaration that they are competent to take on the work that they're engaged to do, and that they are free of conflicts of interest with respect to that work. For every job or project they were engaged on, and the intent behind that is solid, that we need more transparency to ensure that and accountability to ensure that registrants are in fact only practicing in the areas they're competent to practice in and that they are avoiding any real or perceived conflicts, or addressing those conflicts as they come up appropriately. But the mechanisms of filing for every time a registrant is engaged was seen to be problematic and overly burdensome. There are other mechanisms within the PGA that also help to increase the transparency around a registrants competence and ensure that they are thinking about and avoiding situations of conflicts of interest. And we wanted to be able to see how those other provisions were playing out and evaluate their effectiveness before we thought to bring in these other provisions. So we'll continue to look at where declarations might be valuable and useful and look to cater those requirements where they are needed and not put them in place across the board. So regulations, as I mentioned, we have the ability to set regulations in a number of different areas. Our philosophy has been to only put in place regulations at this time that are necessary for the PGA to function and where possible to put our expectations in place in a non-regulatory way. And that is through our guidance that we have set. So sitting under the sort of level of regulations is OSPG guidance. And this guidance mostly speaks to our expectations for regulatory bodies to put in place provisions in their bylaw level. All of our guidance is available on our website. So anyone is able to look at what are the expectations set by OSPG. And then underneath that is the bylaws of the regulatory bodies. So the PGA requires mandatory bylaws to be set by the regulatory bodies as well as gives authority for other areas that can be set in bylaws necessary for the functioning of the regulatory bodies. All of our regulatory bodies have worked quite hard over the past few years to produce a complete new set of bylaws that are in compliance with the PGA. Their bylaws needed to be filed with the Ministry of Attorney General after a suitability check by the superintendent. And this has all taken place. And the copies of the filed bylaws are available on our website as well as on the websites of the individual regulatory bodies. And then finally sitting under the bylaw level are all of the guidance and policies that regulatory bodies produce that support the functioning of the bylaws and provide greater detail. And regulatory bodies are continuing to work to update the guidance that sits under their bylaws so that it all lines up. Go to the next slide. So the regulations that we've put in place, we've got a general regulation. This includes things like setting out the merit based election process for councillors, council election, as well as setting a mandatory oath of office that all councillors must take as well as chairs of committees. It includes the provisions around firm regulation that enable firm regulation for a particular regulatory body as well as other administrative matters. Each regulatory body has its own professional regulation, which sets out the scope of their regulated practice, that is who they can regulate, as well as the reserve titles conferred upon the professions and reserve practices if they exist for each of the regulatory bodies. We also have a transitional regulation, which addresses matters related to sort of the immediate changes needed for the council structures, as well as including consequential amendments to other regulations and statutes where they may have previously referenced a repealed statute and are now referencing the Professional Governance Act. So now we're going to get into a bit more detail on practice rights under the Professional Governance Act. So practice rights is sort of what we use generally as the public to speak to, like who can practice what profession. Under the PGA, though, there's actually no use of the term practice rights itself. There are actually three connected pieces that together make up those practice rights. And the first is a regulated practice, which is who each regulatory body can regulate. So for example, engineers and geoscientists, BC can regulate engineers and geoscientists. The Association of Forest Professionals of BC can regulate foresters. And other than that, they can regulate doctors because that's an entirely different regulatory body that has the regulated practice for doctors. So the former statutes of the five regulatory bodies, they had definitions of who they can regulate. And those were each drafted at different points in time in different drafting styles with different levels of detail. We did consider sort of copying and pasting those over establishing them in the PGA word for word, but we felt there was a risk of unintended consequences. If you had something framed one way for one profession and another way for a different profession, but you may accidentally leave out an important area of regulated practice just because of the way you would interpret those two definitions alongside each other. So what we did was we looked across those definitions and we drew out what was the common element that could be consistently articulated between the different professions. And what we pulled out was this idea of which advice and services based on what disciplines are registrants of that regulatory body providing. So in the case of engineering, we have a list of engineering disciplines that engineers would be providing advice and services related to in the context of professional forestry. We'd be talking about providing advice and services related to trees, forests, forest ecosystems, et cetera. So I guess the key message there is we worked very diligently to ensure that all those registrants formally registered under the former statutes would continue to be covered under the new definition and that all those registrants would carry forward and be accountable under the PGA. New words, but in effect establishing the same thing. Second piece of practice rights is actually a reserve title, which is not mentioned on the slide specifically, but again, all those regulatory bodies under the PGA, under their former statutes did already have rights to confer titles on specific individuals. And then only those individuals registered with that regulatory body and granted that registration status would be allowed to use those titles. So for example, professional engineer is a title reserved only for professional engineers registered with EGPC. Again, all five regulatory bodies had those reserve titles and they were mostly carried forward as is with a few modernizations and updates, but the reserve titles under the PGA should be fairly familiar. Finally, the third piece of the puzzle on practice rights is reserved practice, which are areas of practice that are reserved for registrants of a particular regulatory body only. So for example, in the health context only doctors registered with that regulatory body can do the practice of medicine and seeing patients. In the case of the PGA, there were three reserved practices established in former statutes, which have been carried forward to the PGA. So those were reserved practices for engineering, geoscience, and forestry. Only registrants of regulatory bodies can do that work. And we had to do the same sort of analysis of not creating unintended consequences with different formulations of definitions. And what we landed on in this case was those things within the regulated practice that require the experience and technical knowledge of the professional disciplines as it relates to the protective purposes of the PGA, which are of course public health and safety as well as potential of harm to the environment. So the overall message with this slide is we had to change the words under the PGA, but we have reestablished basically the status quo in terms of regulated practice, reserve practice, reserve title, collectively practice rights under the PGA because of the fact that we had to transition to a new framework we had, so new words, but we're achieving the same thing. So these next couple of slides just cover off just what I explained previously with the diagram just has the words to go along with it. So regulated practice, reestablish the status quo with some modernization, ensure that all registrants are subject to regulation under the PGA, and follow that formula of provision of advice and services based on disciplines in relation to specific matters. Next slide speaks to those pre-existing reserved practices. So I mentioned engineering, geoscience, and forestry. We're already reserved practices. We have reestablished them in the framework of the PGA and articulated them in a consistent modern format that is based on what requires the experience and technical knowledge of the professional in the context of the public interest purpose. So we recognize that those definitions from the former statutes, they were very long-standing, very familiar, well-understood by professionals working on the ground. There's a transition that is necessary to support the fact that we now have different words in the regulation. So we will be working with the regulatory bodies to publish further supporting materials that illustrate the reserved practice. We know that the regulatory bodies do have this material already, but it isn't necessarily articulated in a way that's 100% clear to all the audiences, the public, industry, government, statutory decision makers, et cetera. So that will be something over time that we in the regulatory bodies build up. And also we did include a backstop in the regulation itself that references just for clarity, everything that was in that reserved practice definition under the former statute on the day it was repealed does continue to be in the reserved practice going forward just so that everybody is 100% clear. So you might be wondering about those regulatory bodies that did not previously have reserved practice under their former statutes. And the PGA does provide a route for establishing new reserve practices and the legislature set out in the course bringing the PGA through the legislature that the Institute of Agrology, the College of Applied Biology and the Applied Science Technicians and Technologists are now eligible to seek reserve practice and have that established. And this is most certainly consistent with that public interest purpose of the PGA. It would ensure that all practitioners in those professions are qualified, competent, and accountable by way of registration with a regulatory body under the PGA. Currently, for those professions, it is entirely legal to practice those professions and not be registered. The only difference that you would have between an unregistered biologist and a registered biologist is that the registered biologist can hold themselves out as a registered professional biologist while the unregistered biologist could not use that specific title. They can legally engage in the same practice. So the superintendent is supportive of exploring those reserve practices for those regulatory bodies, of course, subject to an appropriate process and engagement. The process is actually quite far down the path already for applied biology and agrology. We expect that will come into force within the coming years. It may take some more time for ASTTBC. They are certainly interested in establishing a reserve practice, but they're not quite on the same timeline as the other two. And just a note that those new reserve practices, as we saw on the original diagram at the start of this section, the reserve practice is a subset of the regulated practice. So we already have those regulated practice definitions for CAB BCIA and ASTTBC. And just a note that, of course, the regulated practice for CAB and BCIA specifically excludes those areas of reserve practice already granted to other regulatory bodies under the PGA. So the establishment of any new reserve practice for those professions already necessarily excludes any potential overlap with an existing profession under the PGA. So that's an important thing to note. All that said, as we move forward, we do expect those reserve practice definitions for the new reserve practices to be based on that modern consistent format already set out for the existing reserve practices, the sort of required experience and technical knowledge. We are in the process of doing this for their engagement and will be along with regulatory bodies. And that will continue prior to having definitions set out in the regulations. We do recognize the importance of supporting employers and professionals in the transition. So we'll be publishing the intention and the timeline very early and identifying pathways for those individuals who may have a lot of experience in a particular area of practice, but maybe not a traditional education or credential route supporting their continued practice of that profession through sort of alternate registration pathways. So you can also download these slides. They're also on our website, and this just gives you a snapshot of how these definitions were actually constructed for engineering and forestry. So these are the actual words from the regulations. So a couple questions that we commonly get at the end of this section is how will cross professional practices be addressed as new reserve practices are introduced. We certainly already have a good working model of a true overlap in reserve practice. And this example relates to forest roads and crossings. So both engineers and geoscientists, BC, and maybe the Association of Forest Professionals, got that one wrong. They both have that within their reserve practice. Both individuals seeking to have worked on a forest road or crossing could equally retain either an engineer or a forester to do that work. There's a joint practices board between those two regulators who set common practice standards for those practices that are common to the two professions. So this provides assurance that no matter which professional is being retained to do that work, there is a common standard of practice for how that work will be done. What we've actually found though is that those true overlaps are not nearly so common as what we might call intersections or alignments. So in the context of something like the riparian areas regulation, professionals from all five of the regulatory bodies are all authorized to work as qualified professionals under that act or under the regulation. And they likely are not actually doing exactly the same thing and applied biologists would be looking at that work and bringing different skills to the table than a professional forester would. They might be working alongside each other in a complementary way contributing to different parts of the project, but neither of them is actually doing the exact same practices as the other and you necessarily need the skills of both those professionals or even others to complete the task at hand. So part of that work and engagement that we're doing as we transition to those new reserve practices will be identifying those intersections and alignments and explore whether there are truly any overlaps that need to be addressed and articulated with common practice standards, for example. And then another question we frequently get is how exactly do I know what is reserve practice and what is not? So our understanding from our previous engagement is that it is well understood by practicing professionals where the line is between what's reserved and what can be done by the non-professional. But it is not necessarily clearly articulated in accessible materials to other audiences. So that's where I mentioned previously those illustrative materials that is important for ourselves and regulatory bodies to produce that over time that resource will become available and commonly understood to a broader range of audiences as to what is exactly reserve practice and what is not. So that's the end of the regulatory framework section and now I'll hand it over to Rebecca. Thank you. So to begin with talking about duty to report this is not something that's new. In fact, an ethical obligation to report for a registrant to report where they are observing misconduct or incompetent practice from another registrant has always been contained in the code of ethics of the regulatory bodies. So that's not something new. What the professional reliance review unfolded was that it is an extremely important tool for regulatory bodies to be able to receive that information so that they can look into the matters of the practice of the particular individual and address the practice concerns where necessary. Really important tool for regulatory bodies to be able to receive that information. Because of that and because of some additional sort of barriers that were recognized for registrants to be making those reports the PGA now contains a statutory duty to report and the difference between a statutory duty to report and ethical obligation. The statutory duty to report actually has some penalties that can be imposed on a registrant for failure to meet their statutory duty. The other difference is that the statutory duty applies to a registrant reporting on any other registrant that is governed under the professional governance act. So it's expanding the scenario to a registrant being obligated to report on a registrant from another discipline. Now, we understand that professional, register professional biologist is not going to be able to recognize and authoritatively speak to sort of the technical practice of an engineer, for example. And that is not what they're meant to do under the statutory report. However, under the PGA all of the registrants under all of the disciplines are subject to a common ethical and professional conduct requirements and standards. And that is something because of that commonality it is anticipated that registrants will be able to recognize an ethical practice or practice that involves a conflict of interest regardless of the discipline and be able to make a report and provide that information to the appropriate regulatory body so that they can assess the matter and take action as necessary. I also want to mention that this duty extends to employers or partners of registrants so that an example would be in a case where a registrant's employment is terminated because of a concern about their practice as it relates to a risk of significant harm to the environment or health and safety of the public. That employer is obligated to notify the registrant's regulatory body again so that the regulatory body can look into the matter and determine if they need to impose any additional provisions on to that registrant's practice. So then I mentioned the significant harm to the environment or health and safety of the public or group of people is that that is the threshold that would require reporting. So duty to report is not meant to capture all instances where there are concerns about a profession's practice but really the most significant and concerning ones in this case it's going to require an individual registrant to assess the particular situation in which the registrant is practicing to determine if it is indeed a concern that would lead to a risk of significant harm. And I also wanted to mention that the duty to report is centered around a registrant's practice because that is within the scope and mandate of a regulatory body to address. And so it is not meant to address concerns or risks of significant harm resulting from a government policy or authorization or activities happening on the land base. There are other avenues for someone to raise a concern about those policies or authorizations with the appropriate body that can take action. And then there are reprisal protections included in the under the PGA. So anyone who is making a complaint to a regulatory body or who is fulfilling their duty to report are protected against reprisals and should they be receiving any reprisals then there are avenues for them to report that to the OSPG. And for actions to be taken under the PGA. We do have some guidance out on our website that helps build a common understanding of what the duty to report is and what are the obligations of registrants and employers. So I encourage you to take a look at that guidance. We are also working with our regulatory bodies to come up with scenario based examples, illustrative examples that will help registrants and employers to understand what might examples of triggers for the duty to report. And those will continue to develop those and distribute those on an ongoing basis. So now switching to firm regulation. This is a new authority that has been included in the PGA that did not exist in the statutes of the regulatory bodies previously. It is in recognition that the culture and work environment of professionals supports and aligns with their professional and ethical practice. And so engineers and geoscientists BC have been given authority to start regulating engineering and geoscience firms beginning in July of 2021. And engineers and geoscientists BC are building on years of foundational work that they have laid in this area, including their voluntary organizational quality management program that they've been successfully running for several years. And essentially their program relates to a professional practice management plan that the firm is required to put in place that basically outlines their policies and their programs that will support ethics as well as continuing education and quality management aspects related to the practice of the professions. And so as EGBC is bringing out their program, our other regulatory bodies are observing and learning from EGBC's program and considering how they would roll out their own regulation of firm program. But they have indicated that they are two to five years away from being ready to regulate firms. Despite this, all of our regulatory bodies as well as OSPG are working collaboratively now on what it would look like to regulate in a multidisciplinary firm scenario to ensure that it is an effective and a smooth process for all parties. So the regulation, the definition of firm in the PGA is a very broad definition. It's pretty all-encompassing. It includes entities that are providing services for internal consumption as well as services within the profession, regulated profession for external consumption. The one exception is that the definition distinguishes government registrants, so ministry or agency of the provincial government. And these are excluded from the definition of firm except in the case where they are prescribed as firms or what that means is that government has made a decision to include a particular ministry or agency as a government registrant and then they can be regulated as firms by the regulatory body. So starting with entities that are engaged in providing engineering and geoscience services within government. We have had several of our ministries and entities that have been prescribed in an initial phase. So that includes the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Ministry of Forest Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, WorkSafeBC, Technical Safety BC, the Oil and Gas Commission, and forthcoming is BC Hydro. There are other ministries that are also carrying out engineering and geoscience work, some examples being Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, as well as Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. And work continues to engage with those ministries and take the lessons learned from the initial implementation of the ministries and entities listed above. In order to inform the rollout of firm regulation for these other entities. Now EGBC, and firm regulation is a program of EGBC and so your best resource is the information provided by EGBC. They have delivered a webinar and a recording of that webinar is available online. That's a fantastic resource. And they are also able to connect directly with anyone to discuss a matters of whether or not a particular company would be considered a firm and required to be registered. So, will firms with registrants in two or more regulatory bodies be required to register with each regulatory body? So that's really describing the situation of a multi-disciplinary firm. And that is something that our regulatory bodies and our office are actively looking at. It may be that they would need to register with each regulatory body, as each regulatory body would be responsible for overseeing the practice of that firm that falls within the regulated practice of the particular profession. But I want to assure everyone that we are all considering what is a effective and sort of low burden method for that to take place. So my firm only provides advice and services internally, not to external clients. Do I still have to register with engineers in Geoscience BC? Yes. So the definition of firms is a very broad definition and it does encompass the scenario where a firm is carrying out engineering and Geoscience work for internal consumption. So yes. So this is a duty to report question. So how can a biologist report an engineer if the biologist has no engineering training? And I talked about this a bit on the duty to report slide. Certainly there is no expectation that a biologist would be able to comment on the technical aspects of an engineer's practice. However, because a biologist and an engineer are now operating under very common ethical and professional practice standards, there is certainly some real scenarios where a biologist would recognize ethical misconduct and professional misconduct of an engineer that could potentially lead to a risk of significant harm and that biologist would then be obligated to make a report to engineers in Geoscience BC for them to look into the matter. When a regulatory body receives a report, they treat it as a complaint and they do go through the same process they do with any complaints where they assess the situation and then determine what action is needed. So once a registrant makes a complaint to the regulatory body, the onus is then on the regulatory body to do their due diligence and look into the matter. So regulatory bodies already had duty to report a report. So how is this duty to report different? And I hope I did answer that, but I can offer a few more bit of summary pieces of information. The duty to report in a Code of Ethics really speaks to reporting on other registrants within the same discipline. The duty to report, includes a new scenario where a registrant could be reporting on another registrant of a different discipline as well. The statutory duty to report includes some penalties if a person is found to not be meeting their duty to report. Now, OSPG is not going to be out there looking to actively catch people and not reporting. How it would probably come up is that in a case of a complaint could be made that someone is not meeting their duty to report and that would have to be looked into. Or in the case of an investigation into a discipline matter of a registrant, it was determined that another registrant knew of the matter and didn't take action to report. So, in that case, an investigation would take place and appropriate penalties or consequences would be laid. I'll just add to that. The statutory duty to report actually has that significant risk of harm threshold in it, whereas the regulatory bodies in their own duties to report may require reports on issues that don't actually meet that threshold for the statutory duty to report. Our last topic today is to introduce our standards of good regulation a little bit more about the role of OSPG. We have put out a set of standards of good regulation. These are also available on our website. We have developed these based on the work of the UK Professional Standards Authority. And these set out OSPG expectations for regulatory body performance that would indicate that they are meeting their public interest mandate. They are based on the functions of the regulatory bodies, so setting standards of competence and conduct, setting education and continuing competence requirements, the registration functions, the role of regulatory bodies in carrying out audits and practice reviews, and their complaints and discipline system, as well as a more all-encompassing bucket related to transparency and accountability in general. And so OSPG will be building out an audit and practice review program, which will be directed at the regulatory bodies and based on auditing or carrying out a practice review against these standards of good regulation. We intend that we will be publishing the results of those performance reviews on a regular basis and this is a real important driver for the oversight role of our office, as well as public transparency and accountability for the regulatory bodies. And finally just to tell you a little bit about what are some of the other functions of the office as we've moved from away from implementing the act to operating under the act, we will continue to set and update policies and regulations as needed. I talked a little bit about establishing our audit and investigation processes and our year one plan for initiating and beginning to carry out a performance review of the regulatory bodies. Kate had mentioned that we are bringing the architectural institute of BC under the PGA and the work that we will be doing over the next year to support their transition. We also mentioned we have the ability to consider and recommend new designations. There is a couple of ways that those designations could happen. They could happen by application of a professional body or the OSPG could carry out an investigation on our own accord or it could be a decision of government, which was the case with the architectural institute of BC. All the information about the designation process and the application process in particular what information we'd like to see in an application as well as what criteria we'll be using when we are assessing whether or not to bring the regulatory body or professional organization under the PGA that is all available on our website for anyone who's interested in taking a look. We also have set up a professional governance advisory committee that is made up of representatives from the ministries that both employ professional registrants as well as rely on our regulatory bodies. So this table is able to look at issues of mutual interest to the ministries and the regulatory bodies and really constructive dialogue can take place at that table. Our office is mandated to conduct research evaluate our policies and guidance and share best practices so we're really a function of our office is to be a center of excellence in professional governance and to help bring best practices from elsewhere into the governance of professions in BC. And we also communicate so we have our OSPG website which I've mentioned a few times as well. We are required to table an annual report to the legislature each year and this year's annual report which will be our second annual report will be tabled in May at the end of May. So I think that is the end of our presentation. I think we have a contact slide. Yes. So if anyone had any questions that were not answered by us and we encourage you to write them into our inbox and we will get back to you with your questions and we want to thank you for viewing this webinar. We hope it has provided some useful information to you and we look forward to future conversations with folks as we roll this out and continue our operations. Thank you very much.