Mobility and Admission to Professions: Guidance for Regulators from International Instruments, Agreements, and Best Practices

A Keynote Speech Highlights  

International Migration and Labor Mobility Imperatives

The backdrop of an international migrant workforce that reaches 280 million migrants worldwide, of which 48% are female, and most are skilled and often high-skilled workers, presents complexities and imperatives to mobility, including economic, individual, and fair treatment factors. These have both positive aspects, like the opportunity for development for destination countries, and negative aspects, such as the poaching of skilled workers by developed countries and the loss of development capacity of countries of origin, not to mention the potential waste of talent in the destination country if the integration and recognition process is inadequate.

Regulators’ Role and Mobility

Gariépy stated that regulators need to balance the rights and interests of individuals and those of the countries of origin and destination. Likewise, he pointed out the need for global governance and standards in the service of the public interest and protection, as regulators manage risks associated with requirements and processes to maintain competence, integrity, and discipline. The role of the regulator is to be objective and transparent in the process of entry-to-practice requirements, evaluate based on knowledge and skills required to support the activities of a regulated profession and offer a registration process that is fair, transparent, and no more cumbersome than necessary.

Qualification Recognition and Mobility

Human mobility brings skills, qualifications, and competencies; the issue is recognizing their qualifications both for the professional and the countries of destination and origin and facilitating integration so they can contribute fully socially and economically. Qualification recognition has its legal, normative, and technical framework, which considers, among other things, guides, codes, normative documents, principles, and best practices. It is fundamental to meet the needs for different recognition mechanisms to recognize and complement each other.

Trade agreements such as the Canadian Trade Agreement (CFTA-Canada, between provinces and territories) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) extend beyond goods and services to include regulated professions. The CFTA and NAFTA have particularities regarding recognizing licenses and licensure interstate compacts. However, Gariépy underscored that in some trade agreements, such as NAFTA, there is weak implementation and limited scope, often for temporary movement, under supervision, and for more experienced practitioners.

Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA)

Intergovernmental agreements such as the Quebec-France Agreement are an umbrella of accords for MRAs for all regulated professions and trades that, among other provisions, aim for full license recognition and include compensatory measures where justified.

MRAs have advantages, particularly in managing differences between jurisdictions, supporting greater transparency, objectivity, fairness, and efficiency, and fostering a structured and respectful dialogue between jurisdictions.   

Recognition of Qualifications as a Universal Individual Right

Various international instruments address qualification recognition, such as the United Nations and the International Labour Organization, a UN agency that promotes social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights. International collaborations, in place only within and between signatory countries, depend significantly on the prescriptive nature of the obligations and processes under the agreement, the enforcement mechanisms in place, and the presence of exceptions and exclusions.

Gariépy noted a push for global qualification recognition, building it as an individual right with social and economic aspects. This right complements and reinforces the rights to education, equality, the right to work, and fair treatment.   These skills, qualifications, and competence are individual personal attributes that, as he pointed out, cannot be ignored or denied on a discriminatory or frivolous basis.

Substantial Equivalence Difference

Substantial differences are those between a foreign qualification and the qualification of the State party that would most likely prevent the applicant from succeeding in a desired activity, such as research, further study, or employment opportunities. The differences touch on overall equivalency, the scope of qualifications, comparability, and substantial equivalence. Among the lessons learned about substantial equivalence, Gariépy highlights that it is impossible to make detailed comparisons, given that differences are inevitable and constantly changing globally.  He also mentioned that not all differences are substantial or relevant and that adopting the correct analysis and decision-making posture is important.

Types of Learning

Fairness requires recognizing and valuing all types of learning. Some types of learning may present greater challenges regarding documentation, analysis, relevance, and comparison with a professional standard. The presentation addressed the differences between formal, non-formal, informal, and life-long learning.

Regulators’ Focus on Fairness

Gariépy concluded his presentation by underscoring three angles to fairness: procedural, substantive, and relational.

Procedural fairness pertains to the process and the methods of decision-making. Here, the person impacted by the process is informed, criteria are formed, involve them as much as possible, and allow them to provide input. The regulator, in turn, thoroughly and impartially reviews all elements while complying with procedures, policies, and methods. Communicate decisions transparently to the person impacted and offer an efficient recourse when needed.

Substantive fairness means the decision is legal and reasonable according to legal parameters, including the reasons clearly explained to the person impacted. The decision does not discriminate against the person affected on prohibited grounds, such as human rights.

Relational fairness is about how the person is treated and the individual’s perception of the registration process and the decision. It requires a critical view beyond the process and the methodology, as well as considerate, courteous, timely, clear, and direct communications.

Gariépy noted that achieving fairness in real life is not always easy or obvious, requiring substantial consideration. Situations will tell the scope of a fairness issue, generate the rule, and outline a path forward. Lessons learned, open discussion, and communication with colleagues help address, correct, and improve situations that may indicate limits or flaws of the registration or assessment processes and their methods, pointing out the need to improve. 

For the full presentation, click here.