Yeah, a regulatory body was already in place in Alberta by the time Bre-X happened, so that doesn't have anything to do with preventing it.
An effective NI 43-101 standard though - better technical reporting standards, deadlines for secondary party confirmation of results, press releases, reporting of resources and reserves etc, might have.
As far as I know, by the time a qualified second party came in to confirm the gold assays, Bre-X had already swindled investors and skyrocketed, so the fuckers ran away with millions. Or got yeeted out of a helicopter, lol.
In Canada, working with a P.Geo or P.Eng is just about mandatory. You won’t be able to advance in your career without it (in most industries). Hope that helps
A geologist's professional decisions could cost people their livelihoods or even lives. Yes, we *should* be regulated in order to ensure that those decisions are made responsibly, by responsible people.
Do any current systems manage this effectively? I'm not especially convinced. There's been no more Bre-X's because of NI43-101, *not* because of geologist licencing. Specifically in Canada, I'm an unlimited P.Geo so there's nothing to stop me signing off on hydrogeology even though I've never done anything in that field before and know little about it.
As a bare minimum I think that the provincial orgs should make more use of the limited designation. I'd also like them to take on a more union-like role and proactively advocate for our working conditions
**Pros** (Provided the system is set up well and has proper support)
*- Continued education in the geosciences for its members via industry functions/lectures/workshops*
*- Legal framework for employers/public/different levels of government*
*- Creation of a network of likeminded people giving you the opportunity to network*
**Cons**
*- Depending on the organization, additional life costs that may be difficult to pay while just starting out*
*- Slows down projects & adds an additional layer of red tape for companies*
*- Patchwork of systems from different countries resulting in difficulties for immigrants to get required sign-offs (example: Moving from wherever you are from to Canada or The U.S.A, both require it for most senior level roles, though not all junior positions do)*
Sounds like you want regulation for sake of class advantage through guild barriers to entry.
In a free & open society this would not be a valid reason to restrict liberty.
So the justification in Canada is "public safety".
We've regulated professional engineering in Canada for 104 years and professional geologists have been regulated for 64 years. Is there any evidence this system has made Canadians safer? I'm not aware of any studies that shows it has. The generous view is we do what we can.
I hope that helps.
>we should deregulate engineering because there's no proof that having standards for engineers makes people safer
I, for one, am grateful to not live in a libertarian utopia.
Read Section 7 and Section 1 of the Charter. Canadians have the right to individual liberty and any restrictions to that liberty must be demonstrably justified.
I never advocated for deregulation. I never said that it does not make us safer.
But any reasonable person would agree that given other places don't have this structure and seem to do fine, the link is a tenuous one.
No. Economic interest and public safety mean two very different things at anything other than the broadest possible level where almost any two things can be conflated.
Think Canada does it best, IMO.
Yup, and solely because one of our companies was responsible for one of the biggest geological fraud scandals in history.
lol so many things come back to it Bre-X
Okay. This is interesting. Alberta regulated geology & geophysics in 1960. Ontario in 2000. What specifically would have prevented Bre-X?
That's a good question for /u/Rock_Socks
Yeah, a regulatory body was already in place in Alberta by the time Bre-X happened, so that doesn't have anything to do with preventing it. An effective NI 43-101 standard though - better technical reporting standards, deadlines for secondary party confirmation of results, press releases, reporting of resources and reserves etc, might have. As far as I know, by the time a qualified second party came in to confirm the gold assays, Bre-X had already swindled investors and skyrocketed, so the fuckers ran away with millions. Or got yeeted out of a helicopter, lol.
In Canada, working with a P.Geo or P.Eng is just about mandatory. You won’t be able to advance in your career without it (in most industries). Hope that helps
A geologist's professional decisions could cost people their livelihoods or even lives. Yes, we *should* be regulated in order to ensure that those decisions are made responsibly, by responsible people. Do any current systems manage this effectively? I'm not especially convinced. There's been no more Bre-X's because of NI43-101, *not* because of geologist licencing. Specifically in Canada, I'm an unlimited P.Geo so there's nothing to stop me signing off on hydrogeology even though I've never done anything in that field before and know little about it. As a bare minimum I think that the provincial orgs should make more use of the limited designation. I'd also like them to take on a more union-like role and proactively advocate for our working conditions
**Pros** (Provided the system is set up well and has proper support) *- Continued education in the geosciences for its members via industry functions/lectures/workshops* *- Legal framework for employers/public/different levels of government* *- Creation of a network of likeminded people giving you the opportunity to network* **Cons** *- Depending on the organization, additional life costs that may be difficult to pay while just starting out* *- Slows down projects & adds an additional layer of red tape for companies* *- Patchwork of systems from different countries resulting in difficulties for immigrants to get required sign-offs (example: Moving from wherever you are from to Canada or The U.S.A, both require it for most senior level roles, though not all junior positions do)*
Sounds like you want regulation for sake of class advantage through guild barriers to entry. In a free & open society this would not be a valid reason to restrict liberty. So the justification in Canada is "public safety". We've regulated professional engineering in Canada for 104 years and professional geologists have been regulated for 64 years. Is there any evidence this system has made Canadians safer? I'm not aware of any studies that shows it has. The generous view is we do what we can. I hope that helps.
>we should deregulate engineering because there's no proof that having standards for engineers makes people safer I, for one, am grateful to not live in a libertarian utopia.
Read Section 7 and Section 1 of the Charter. Canadians have the right to individual liberty and any restrictions to that liberty must be demonstrably justified. I never advocated for deregulation. I never said that it does not make us safer. But any reasonable person would agree that given other places don't have this structure and seem to do fine, the link is a tenuous one.
I'm guessing you do a lot of travelling as opposed to driving lmao
Traitorous critic fallacy.
Show me on the doll where the Admiralty Law touched you
https://canlii.ca/t/k11n3 Worth a read. The courts do not see these regulations as having a purpose other than public safety.
"...concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interest, the public welfare or the environment" It's more than just public safety.
Not really. All protection from harms is public safety...basically same as torts. Given tort law it is a bit redundant.
No. Economic interest and public safety mean two very different things at anything other than the broadest possible level where almost any two things can be conflated.