Bill would restrict use of professional designations, regulate HR advisory firms, and allow inspections and investigations

“This Act does not affect or interfere with the right of any person who is not a member of the Association to practise in the field of human resources.” So says Bill 138, which would create the Registered Human Resources Professionals Act. But controversy about this Bill remains.

The Bill would give the Human Resources Professional Association legal authority to set qualification requirements to be admitted as a member of the HRPA. The Bill would prohibit any person who is not a member of the HRPA to use the designations Registered Human Resources Professional, Associate Certified Human Resources Professional, Certified Human Resources Professional, Senior Human Resources Professional, Certified Industrial Relations Counsellor, or the French equivalents.

The Bill would also permit the HRPA to grant or refuse to grant – or place restrictions on – the ability of a firm to practice in the field of human resources.

Much of the controversy around the Bill focuses on the Bill’s complaint process against HR professionals, the broad powers given to the HRPA to conduct investigations and inspect the practices of HR practitioners, and the perceived lack of consultation on the Bill.

Further, the Bill gives broad by‐law making power to the HRPA. Those by‐laws will set out the detailed requirements for education, registration, and other matters.

The Bill passed second reading on March 3, 2011 and has been referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

Bill 138, Registered Human Resources Professionals Act, 2010: