And many professions that have an centralized management body that handles accreditation etc do not conduct 'disciplianry' action against their members in the same way that the legal and medical professions, for example, might do.
Management consulting, for one...
That's because the ability to be truly be a "self-regulated profession" comes from provincial legislation. In every province, there is an Act pertaining to the practice of law, medicine, accounting, etc. that grants various authorities for a certain body (i.e. CPA Alberta, Law Society of Alberta, College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta) to regulate that profession.
Anyone can create a private organization/management body, create accreditation standards for membership, etc. But disciplinary measures are not actually enforceable..... sure they can take away your membership, but if they give you a fine of $5000, there's nothing they can really do to force you to pay it other than I guess civil court proceedings.
If a legislated body like CPA Alberta gives you a fine, it has the weight of provincial legislation behind it. I'm no legal expert but as I understand it, if you don't pay it CPA Alberta can apply for a compliance order and then if you don't pay it, you're defying the Court, which can come with much worse penalties than the fine.....
As an example, Naturopaths want provinces to legislate them to become their own "self-regulated profession" because without it, while there are things like Collège des Naturopathes du Québec, it's got no legislation behind it to actually regulate Naturopathy in Quebec. So they argue that without it, things like this happen
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...court-of-appeal-overturns-acquittal-1.4686317
Respectfully, I think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the additional layer of professional licensing. That's your lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers, psychologists.... I don't think, when most of us are talking about 'professional discipline', that we're talking about that. Maybe the use of the word 'professional' is skewing us lightly here so I'll use 'employer discipline' instead.
I don't think I'm really getting hung up on it at all.
Both employer and professional discipline are administrative in nature.
The difference here is the CAF is both the employer and the body who allows you practice the "profession of arms" so to speak. So they don't
need to have three different parallel things here (criminal/judicial plus this standalone "professional discipline" idea plus the existing administrative system). There's really no point - you could put everything you want under two umbrellas (NDA [criminal/judicial] plus professional discipline [administrative law, which includes both remedial aspects (i.e. performance management of performance and/or conduct issue PLUS professional disciplinary which is
outside the NDA).
I submit, and I think some others agree, that CAF needs a standalone diciplinary process that is neither blended with the administrative performance process, nor is it overlapping the judicial criminal process.
That standalone process you're referring to is going to fall under "administrative" law, just like the CAF's performance management system (e.g. administration actiosn). It's all going to fall under that same umbrella, that's my point. So you can call it two different things if you want, it's all administrative law.
Sticking with what I know, I look to the systems that exist for police. We are not a 'licensed profession', though we're certainly highly regulated.
It's a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned.
A license to do something is just the "right" to do something. Your "right" to do police work is ultimately beholden to them allowing you to do it. In my opinion, "having your badge taken away" is the same as having your license taken away.
We have codes of conduct provincially or federally that are statutorily empowered, regulatorily based, and administered on a balance of probabilities.
So do the professions we're referring to (e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.).
Our employers run these processes.
Indeed. Because in that world, the employer is also essentially regulating the profession.
We cannot be sent to jail under them, but we can be docked pay, docked leave, demoted, or fired.
My point is, the only reason there are two different streams in private professions (i.e. accounting) is because I can work for KRP LLP and also be a member of CPA Alberta.
KRP LLP obviously retains its rights to do standard ol' performance management / employer discipline under employment law, and CPA Alberta has all of its rights as the professional body to do the
professional discipline side of things under the CPA Alberta Act.
If every accountant worked directly for CPA Alberta, they really wouldn't need two different parallel systems (plus, obviously, the criminal justice system).
There are due process rights and they're judicially reviewable administrative law decisions.
Again, this equally true with private, self-regulated professions.
A practitioner who disagrees with the outcome of a disciplinary decision made by the profession can apply for a judicial review of the decision.
Our employer disciplinary processes can be engaged in overlap with criminal processes. If a cop gets drunk and gropes someone at a work party, they may be charged criminally with sexual assault. They may also, separately, be charged with an offence under their respective code of conduct. The latter will determine disciplinary employment consequences. The employer disciplinary matter can be fed by, but does not depend on the criminal proceedings. A criminal stay of proceedings or acquittal may mean no criminal sanction, but on the balance of probabilities standard the employer can still decide 'nope, no longer suitable for our organization' and fire; or 'you done effed up, we think you may be salvageable, but you're docked a month's pay and demoted for two years. This is on a less demanding standard that allows the employer to more efficiently manage its own disciplinary affairs but still affords due process rights. None of this involves professional licensing.
I never said anything about requiring "professional licensing" for policing, or for CAF members, etc.
Like I said, a license is just the right to do something. Police members are already licensed to do police work, CAF members are already licensed to conduct military operations.
Everything you are saying in that paragraph is true both for privately regulated professions and for public professions like policing, whether there is a "formal license" or not.
My point was that everyone is talking about "professional discipline" like it's something different from administrative actions, and it's simply not.
So, of rme personally that's more what I'm imagining... Again just sticking what I know.
There's just no requirement for three different systems in a world where you've only got one body having a monopoly on the employment side of things and the "professional" discipline side of things.... is my point.
Obviously a criminal-type system needs to exist in parallel to whatever you have going on in the administrative side of things.
But private professions only have three things going on in parallel (the criminal aspect done by the Crown, the "employment" aspect done by the employer, and the "professional discipline" side of things done by the profession) because there employer and the body that regulates the profession are most often two distinct entities.
In a world where there is only one body (i.e. the CAF) doing both the employment side of things and the "professional discipline" side of things - both of which fall under administrative law - you don't need two standalone systems.. You can have one system that is much more robust and comprehensive and includes both the "performance management" aspect (i.e. remedial attempts) and the
professional discipline aspect (i.e. fines for poor conduct).
And of the course, the non-administrative side of things (i.e. the NDA) is going to need to operate separately, no matter what you've got going on administratively whether that's under one umbrella or divided into 15 different sub-categories.
People were talking about professional discipline but then bringing in NDA and double-jeopardy issues - and I'm saying, that's a red herring because professional discipline is administrative law.
decisions.rcmp.gc.ca
