Why Proposed Changes to Environmental Site Assessments Threaten Engineers’ Right to Practice

Ontario’s engineering profession is raising serious concerns about a proposed regulatory change that could fundamentally undermine public safety, professional accountability, and engineers’ right to practice.

At issue is a proposal to expand the definition of “Qualified Person” to include Certified Engineering Technologists (CETs), allowing them to independently conduct, supervise, and sign off on Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). This change is a direct challenge to the right to practice engineering in Ontario.

What Is the Right to Practice and Why It Matters

The right to practice is a foundational principle of professional engineering regulation. It means that certain activities, those involving significant risk to public safety, the environment, and the public interest, are legally reserved for licensed professionals who meet rigorous standards and are subject to enforceable accountability.

For engineers, this includes:

• Defined educational requirements
• Supervised experience
• Mandatory ethics obligations
• Professional liability insurance
• Oversight by an independent, self-regulating body
• Disciplinary mechanisms when standards are breached

This framework exists to protect the public. When governments allow non-licensed individuals to perform and certify high-risk work that has historically required professional judgment, they erode public protection and the right to practice.

Why Environmental Site Assessments Are Professional Engineering Work

Environmental Site Assessments routinely require advanced judgment in areas such as:

• Subsurface investigation and sampling design
• Contaminant fate and transport analysis
• Hydrogeological interpretation
• Risk identification and mitigation
• Assessment of long-term environmental and human health impacts

Errors in these assessments can have significant consequences, including groundwater contamination, exposure risks, failed developments, and costly remediation.

ESA certification has been restricted to licensed Professional Engineers and Professional Geoscientists since these professionals are trained, regulated, insured, and legally accountable for high-risk decisions.

Why the Proposed Change Is a Threat

Allowing CETs to independently certify ESAs raises several serious concerns:

1. Public and Environmental Risk
CETs are not licensed under a self-regulating professional framework equivalent to engineering or geoscience. Expanding their authority to sign off on high-risk assessments increases the likelihood of errors without equivalent safeguards.

2. Loss of Clear Accountability
Professional engineers carry a legally enforceable duty of care. If something goes wrong, there are clear mechanisms for discipline, liability, and remediation. Decreasing requirements for those with sign-off authority weakens responsibility and accountability.

3. Erosion of Professional Standards
This sets a precedent overriding protection that is in the public interest. Once professional boundaries are lowered in one high-risk area, it becomes easier to do so elsewhere.

4. Undermining the Right to Practice
The right to practice is not about exclusivity. It ensures that those who make decisions with serious consequences are properly qualified and accountable. Removing core areas of professional practice through regulation undermines the integrity of the profession itself.

Collaboration Is Not the Issue

Engineers work closely with technologists and technicians every day. CETs play a critical and respected role in environmental work as part of multidisciplinary teams.

But collaboration is not the same as independent certification.

The current model where technologists contribute technical expertise under the supervision and accountability of licensed professionals protects the public while ensuring all skills are used effectively.

The proposed change does not improve collaboration. It removes safeguards.

Why OSPE Is Speaking Out

OSPE’s advocacy is grounded in a simple principle: protecting the public by protecting professional accountability.

This is not about limiting opportunity. It is about ensuring that Ontario’s environmental protection framework remains credible, defensible, and trusted—by communities, municipalities, landowners, and the public.

OSPE will continue to listen to our members and call on the province to pause this proposal and engage meaningfully with engineers, geoscientists, and industry stakeholders before advancing regulatory changes of this magnitude.

OSPE listens to our members and advocates for a regulatory system that respects professional standards, protects the public interest, and preserves the integrity of engineering practice in Ontario.