I think I should initiate a discussion back at the ranch (my institution) to discuss the ideas of a framework, beginning with "competencies" - although I would probably use different language. Once we (the faculty at UFV) have a list of "competencies" we can live with, then a conversation could be developed about what or how these competencies would be "tested" for absence or presence. Then the conversation would move to what would then be done to provide educational opportunities for those who wish to (or are required to) demonstrate these competencies.
A framework - as in, a provincial framework - might be the step farther down the path. I would think the local and the provincial union would be involved, since presumably such a framework would have implications for getting and keeping positions. I'm not a big fan of getting the provincial ministry of advanced education involved, because that's a might big foot.
As my institution tussles with rank and tenure and resulting issues to to with promotion and job security, and as we affirm that teaching is our central activity - a statement of "what means" good teaching is essential. So we're at a good place to have these conversations. As long as the conversation doesn't become a top-down, autocratic imposition of conventions, evaluation, grading, etc. Like our students, we like to know what an A+ means and what the criteria is for achieving such a level. Most faculty really care about the quality of our teaching, and think and talk about it endlessly, so framing the conversation (no pun intended) would be ... interesting.
I have found this discussion useful and provocative. I hope to be able to join further discussions on this topic. And if we're developing a working group - count me in!
Wendy