Actuaries sit at the intersection of risk, long‑term thinking and real‑world decisions. Our work influences financial security, the sustainability of benefits and pensions, insurer solvency, and the resilience of critical programs and systems that Canadians rely on. The public may not always see the details behind actuarial work, but they feel its impact.
That’s why the Rules of Professional Conduct exist in the first place. They provide assurance – especially to those who rely on actuarial work but cannot independently assess it – that our advice is grounded in standards of integrity, competence and accountability, all in service of the public interest.
Rule 1 reminds us that integrity is foundational. But professionalism is not sustained by values alone. Competence, demonstrated consistently over time, is also critical. People trust actuaries because they believe our work is not only ethical, but also reliable, objective, consistent with modern trends, and defensible.
Rule 2 speaks directly to that expectation. It is the rule most closely connected to the quality of the professional services that actuaries provide.
Professional integrity earns trust. Professional competence sustains it.
Rule 2 in action
Rule 2 states:
“A member shall perform professional services only when the member is qualified to do so and meets applicable professional continuing qualification standards.”
This could be read as procedural or framed as a compliance requirement, but it actually carries a broader purpose.
Rule 2 is not about imposing limits or creating barriers. It is meant to protect our reputation as actuaries, and even more importantly, it is about protecting the users of actuarial work, including clients, employers, regulators, and ultimately the public. In many settings, non‑actuaries may not be able to independently evaluate the technical quality of an actuarial product. They rely on our professional standards to give them that confidence.
Rule 2 also reflects something important about the profession: qualification is not a single moment. It is ongoing. Our fields evolve. Methods improve. New risks emerge. The work changes, and our capabilities must keep pace. I like to think of Rule 2 as this: it is about earning, and continually re‑earning, the right to be trusted.
This is one of the key distinctions between Rule 1 and Rule 2. Rule 1 governs integrity and conduct broadly. Rule 2 governs whether the work itself is carried out by someone who is appropriately prepared to do it.
Putting Rule 2 into practice
In practice, Rule 2 asks members to take a thoughtful, candid view about their readiness, and to recognize that seeking support to learn and grow is part of good practice. It means taking on professional services only once you feel you have:
- the appropriate education,
- relevant experience, and
- current knowledge for the work at hand.
It also means meeting applicable continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. CPD is how we remain effective in a changing environment and keep our professional judgment well‑supported.
Rule 2 is also about using our judgment. You will face situations where the answer is not a simple “yes” or “no.” The right response might be to seek guidance, to collaborate, to work under appropriate supervision, or to decline an assignment until you have the capability to do it well.
How this plays out can look very different depending on context. In a large organization, it may involve drawing on internal expertise, peer review or structured supervision. In a smaller organization or independent practice, it may mean seeking external advice, collaborating with peers, or deciding not to take on an engagement until the necessary capabilities are in place.
Rule 2 does not prescribe a single approach, but it does require the same underlying judgment: being honest about readiness and acting in the best interest of those who rely on our work.
How Rule 2 prioritizes the future
The profession is evolving. Actuaries are working in new sectors, new roles, and increasingly interdisciplinary environments. Member research has also identified emerging issues that may reshape practice, including the implications of AI and new forms of actuarial work.
Rule 2 does not prevent innovation. In fact, it helps make innovation possible without eroding trust. Expanding into new areas is encouraged, and it requires that we ensure appropriate training, experience and oversight are in place.
Innovation is strongest when it is built on competence and appropriate rigour.
As a practicing actuary, I continuously build my capabilities by learning from colleagues with deeper experience and by drawing on formal technical resources such as education, standards and guidance notes. This is especially relevant when working in areas that are new to me or emerging in the profession. This combination of collaboration and structured learning helps ensure that innovation is grounded in competence and that professional judgment keeps pace with the evolving nature of our work.
Good work is how trust is earned and maintained
Rules of professional conduct evolve, but their purpose remains steady. They help ensure the profession serves the public interest and remains worthy of trust.
Rule 2 is central to that trust. It keeps the profession strong today, and it protects our ability to remain relevant and credible into the future.
For newer members, it provides reassurance that the profession supports development and expects appropriate supervision, collaboration and learning while competence is being built. For experienced members, it is a reminder that expertise must be maintained. Staying current is a responsibility, and mentoring others is one of the most effective ways to strengthen the profession’s capability over time.
“The value of the profession is measured in the quality of the work it delivers. And that quality depends on competence that is maintained, renewed and applied with judgment.”
Members can dive deeper into Rule 2 to understand more about why it matters and how it applies them.