Most of the activities andissues before theAssociation are reported on

elsewhere in this publication by thevarious committees and the Directorof Admissions. This report isintended to cover matters not dealtwith by them. Some were also dis-cussed in my messages in the threeprevious issues of this publication.

Financial

As Treasurer I report that theAssociation continues to be in asound financial position. The levelof reserves is such that they couldsustain the Association’s operationsfor one year. The Auditor’s Reportand 2002 Financial Statements areavailable from the Associationoffice. They will be distributed atthe Annual General Meeting and arealso posted on the Association’swebsite. There has been a smallincrease in the membership. At June30, 2002, there were 3783 memberson the register (up from 3772 in2001) with 2743 being residents ofManitoba. Of the 3783, 225 are pro-fessional geoscientists, of which19hold dual registrations. Additionally,there are 258 holders of Certificatesof Authorization and another 610persons enrolled as members-in-training

With the numbers being rela-tively static and costs inevitably onthe increase, the budget adopted bythe Council for the membership year2003 requires a dues increase. Thepayment in 2003, with GSTincluded, will be $248, up from$242. One of the increases is for thesecondary professional liabilityinsurance program at a cost of $10per person.

Governance

As was reported in earlier issues ofthis publication, the Council is wellalong in the implementation ofPolicy Governance® for conductingthe affairs of the Association. I am encouraged by the progressthat has been made in this area. Inthat context, the number of meetingsof the Council has been reducedfrom 11 to seven per year. TheGovernance Policies are posted onthe Association’s web site atwww.apegm.mb.ca

National SecondaryProfessional LiabilityInsurance

This is a new program. There havebeen reports and notices regardingthe program in the last three issue ofthis publication and in a recent mail-ing. Once again, I encourage mem-bers and members-in-training tofamiliarize themselves with the pol-icy and its conditions and exclu-sions. Questions regarding theprogram are to be directed to theprogram hot line at 1-800-361-9080where staff of the broker are avail-able to answer questions from 8:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday,central time. Do not direct yourquestions to the Association office.

Inter-Profession Liaison

The Association has memoranda ofunderstanding and obligations underthe Act, which provide for formalliaison with some other professions.

There are joint boards and com-mittees established as part of thoseobligations, and for which I serve asthe contact and staff support.

■ Certified Technicians andTechnologists of Manitoba(CTTAM)

The Engineering, Geosciencesand Applied Sciences Inter-Association Relations JointBoard is established by the Actfor the purposes of developingand recommending processes forco-operation by the two associa-tions in carrying out their respec-tive areas of responsibility in thepublic interest, and for the reso-lution of issues or disputesrespecting areas of practice. TheChair of the Board, RoySchellenberg, was appointed bythe Minister of Labour. TheAPEGM representatives on thatBoard are Michael Bulman, P.Eng., C.E.T., Len Chambers, P.Eng., C.E.T., Vic Thielmann, P.Eng., and Allan Silk, P. Eng. asthe Council contact. The Boardheld three meetings in the pastyear.

■ Manitoba Association ofArchitects (MAA)

The Engineering andGeoscientific Professions Actand The Architects Act estab-lished the Engineering,Geosciences and ArchitectureInter-Association Relations JointBoard. It too is intended for thepurposes of developing and rec-ommending processes for co-operation by the two associationsin carrying out their respective

areas of responsibility in thepublic interest, and for the reso-lution of issues or disputesrespecting areas of practice. TheChair, Tom Bleasdale, is alsoappointed by the Minster ofLabour. The APEGM represen-tatives have been Doug Stewart,P. Eng., Ken Drysdale, P. Eng.,and Bill Thomas, P. Eng., withCouncil representation by AlfPoetker, P. Eng. The Board heldsix meetings in the past year.

■ Association of Manitoba LandSurveyors (AMLS)

APEGM entered into aMemorandum of Understandingwith AMLS in 1998. It estab-lished a Joint Committee that hasa very similar purpose and pro-cess as those established inLegislation with CTTAM andMAA. APEGM representativeson the Joint Committee are DonMulder, P. Eng., Jim Thomson,P. Eng., and Darwin Kupskay, P.Eng. The Joint Committee doesnot have an independent Chair.That responsibility alternatesbetween the Associations frommeeting to meeting. The AMLShas been seeking changes to itsgoverning legislation, and theJoint Committee also provides aforum for discussion as the legis-lation evolves. The Committeeheld two meetings in the pastyear.

Fort Garry Hotel, WinnipegFriday, October 18 & Saturday, October 19, 2002

Details inside

The Association of Professional Engineers andGeoscientists of the Province of Manitoba

83rd ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientistsof the Province of Manitoba

SEPTEMBER 2002www.apegm.mb.ca

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40062980

Continued on page 4

Report of theExecutive Directorand Registrar D.A. Ennis, P.Eng.

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 20022

SEPTEMBER 2002

Published by the Association of Professional Engineers andGeoscientists of the Province of Manitoba

850A Pembina Highway, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3M 2M7

Ph. (204) 474-2736 Fax (204) 474-5960E-Mail: apegm@apegm.mb.ca

APEGM COUNCILM.A. Barakat, P.Eng., President; T.J. Cornell, P.Eng.; L.R. Ferchoff,P.Eng.; K. Gaudry, FCGA; K.V. Gilmore, P.Geo.; M.L. Goldsborough,P.Eng.; D. Harfield, P.Eng.; A.H. Permut, P.Eng.; A.J. Poetker, P.Eng.;A.J. Pollard, P.Eng., Past-President; A.D. Silk, P.Eng.; E.C. Syme, P.Geo.

CHAIRS – BOARDS & COMMITTEESL.J. Van Dusen, P.Eng. Environment & Sustainable DevelopmentD.R. Strang, P.Eng. Emerging IssuesW.T. Jackson, P.Eng. Public AwarenessB. Stimpson, P.Eng. Academic ReviewA.N. Kempan, P.Eng. (Ret.) CommunicationsK.J.T. Kjartanson, P.Eng. Registration I.H. McKay, P.Eng. InvestigationF.L. Nicholson, P.Eng. Practice StandardsJ.M. Symonds, P.Eng. AwardsE.G. Parker, P.Eng. Salary ResearchM.E. Baril, P.Eng. Sports & SocialD.A. Ennis, P.Eng. MeetingsF.A. Roberts, P.Eng. SafetyR.E. Scouten, P.Eng. DisciplineJ.D. McInnis, P.Eng. Experience ReviewD.N. Spangelo, P.Eng. LegislationB.A.K. Danielson, P.Eng. Women’s Action CommitteeD.B. McKibbin, P.Eng. Professional DevelopmentA.J. Pollard, P.Eng. NominatingS. Arkia. EIT Members-in-TrainingJ.M. Symonds, P.Eng. Act AwarenessC.R. Galeschuk, P.Geo. Geoscience Issues Task ForceP. Washchyshyn, P.Eng. CCPE DirectorA.H. Bailes, P.Geo. CCPG Director

APEGM STAFF D.A. Ennis, P. Eng., Executive Director and Registrar; S.M. Matile, P. Eng., Director of Admissions; W. Boyce, Manager,Operations & Finance; J.C. McKinley, Administrative Officer; L. Dupas, Admissions Co-ordinator; J. Reykdal, Registration Co-ordinator; S. Bruce, Accounting & Membership

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE A.N. Kempan, P.Eng. (Ret), Chair; M. Baril, P.Eng.; J.A. Blatz, P.Eng.; V.L. Dutton, P. Eng. (Ret.); E.P. Hancox, EIT; J.W.P. Lengyel, P.Geo.;A.A. Poulin, P.Eng.; D.H. Inglis, EIT; S.B. Williamson, EIT

The Communications Committee would like to hear from you. Commentson your newsletter can be forwarded to us through the Association office.Members are also encouraged to submit articles and photos on topics thatwould be of interest to the membership.

Although the information contained in this publication is believed to becorrect, no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as toits accuracy and completeness. Opinions expressed are not necessarilythose held by the APEGM or the APEGM Council.

Licences Issued May, June & July 2002

R.B. Atkinson (AB)L. Beeching W.A. Bullee (SK)B.D. Charnish (ON)K.L. Chouinard (ON)C.A.H. CormanR.J. Cowan (SK)N.F. Dimock (ON)J.R. Elkink (SK)D.R. Evans (NB)S.A.M. FaragT. GaamangweR.E.M. Graham (SK)T.A. Hakim (AB)W.D. Hall (SK)T.W. Hart (BC)D.M. Hladun (SK)P.A. Hooge (SK)

R.B. HulasareA.E. JordanW.H. Karolat S. Lai (BC)D. LourencoL.F. Lukey (SK)N.N. MartinezK.R. Merkley (ON)P.M. Meyer (BC)G. MilitanoN.J. MillikenA. MuhammadS.N. MukhiB.D. Munro (AB)T.H. O’Rourke (ON)J.R. PehkonenM. Peric (ON)B.J. Ransom

C.A. Rempel (SK)M.C. RowbothamP. Sandland (BC)R.N. Sarkar (SK)J.L. SchinkelR.A. Selin (BC)T.W. ShanksF.W. Shewchuk (AB)M.E. Simpson (BC)R.D. StarkF.W. Sweet (BC)W.T. Therriault (ON)B.W. Wagner (AB)M.C. Walker (SK)P. WangG.R. Wreford (AB)W.Y. YuenM.H. Zahedi

New Members Registered May, June & July 2002

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40062980

G.C. Brule (QC)D.H. Charles (CA)

G.V. Nagel (MN)J.W. Sneed (NE)

R.F. Williamson (IA)

Reinstatements May, June & July 2002

D.D. Davidson (SK) T.C.W. Ip (ON)

Certificates of Authorization Issued

Bullee Consulting Ltd.Cronnox IncorporatedD.H. Charles Engineering, Inc.Greenhouse Engineering, division of AlexTurkewitsch, P.Eng. Ltd.Hall Engineering Co. Ltd.Inland Pipe Ltd.Jacobs Canada (formerly Delta Hudson)Key West Engineering Ltd.Power Engineers, Inc.

Rempel EngineeringRadian Communication Services (Canada)LimitedSimplex GrinnellT.A. Keith Engineering Ltd.T.H. O’Rourke Structural Consultants Inc.TransGas LimitedWalker Projects\Yolles Partnership

Members-In-Training Enrolled May, June & July 2002

I. AlguacilD.E.S. AndersonA. Basic-BilicD.E. BeckerZ. BilicJ.M.J. BlaisP.D. BollmanM.W. BoonstraA.G. BowenD.R.P. BuckinghamC.Y.A. ChanS.P. ClarkD.T.L. ColonvalV.L.T. Doan

A. DuneG.E. EftodaL.T. FernandoM.A. FournierD.D. GagneN.G. HoskingS. Ingimundson-CampbellT.F. KelbertJ.A. KellerC. LiuT.L.T. MatechukM.M. McCandlessL.M.K. MelvinS.M. Melvin

C.W. NationD.J. Nedohin-Macek T.R. NyabezeA.J. RegginR.J. RoddR.B. ShenoudaN.S. SidhuP.S. SmerchanskiM.N.T. SolimanM.J. TinholtJ.P. TremblayS.B. WattT. YoungH. Zhu

Resignations June 30, 2002

R.B. BandM.F. BlamireT.D. BrauenJ. BrittanJ.C. HerbertS.S. HodgeH.M. Huang

M.R. HumphriesR.C. KoltesE.Z. LajtaiL.Y.W. LeungZ.A. MarsicK.L.H. MillsP.C.Y. Ng

E.D. PrefontaineJ.T.L. PulakA.E. ReschtkeK.R. RichardsR.F. SchmidtW.F. SkibinskiG.T. Smith

J.P. SprentzA.J. WalkerL.C. WaltersJ.R. WinfieldS.A. Witzke

Members-in-Training Resignations June 30, 2002

D.E.L. BouletJ. Jacob

H.L. Martin A.C.D. Poole D.J. Rob

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 3

I s your salary keeping up withmember salaries in your disci-pline, your industry sector, or

your graduating class? This year’semployee salary looks at these andother issues in the report publishedthrough the APEGM web site. The2002 salary survey report includesdetails on base salary and totalincome by APEGM point level forEngineers and Geoscientists andcompares salary by industry sectorand job function.

The annual employee salary sur-vey for 2002 once again received anexcellent response rate with com-pleted surveys received from 25% ofthe members. The members report-ed an average increase of 4.6% inbase salary for the year endingDecember 31, 2001. The base salaryincrease in the public sector was4.5% while the base salary increasein the private sector was 4.7% thisyear. This compares to the averagebase salary increase of 5.1% report-ed for the year ending December 31,2000. When analyzing the salaryincreases for Geoscientists andEngineers, approximately 20% ofthe Geoscientists and 50% of theEngineers reported salary increasesgreater than 3% in 2001.

In terms of dollars in 2001, themean salary for starting positionswas $39,426, for technical positions

was $56,626 and for project man-ager positions was $73,826. Onceagain, the highest mean base salarieswere reported for administrative andmanagement functions. These func-tions, along with marketing andsales, also received the highest aver-age bonuses and other forms ofincome. The highest mean incomereported was $104,544 for theadministrative services function.

The mean income showed a pos-itive trend based on year of gradua-tion. The mean income rose fairly

constantly from around $39,000for graduates in 2001 to around$63,000 for graduates in 1991.The mean income for graduates inthe 70s and 80s was around$85,000 and was shaped more byjob function than by year ofgraduation. Graduates prior to1970 reported a mean income ofapproximately $100,000. ForGeoscientists, the pattern wassimilar but the salary levels were10 to 15% lower than their fellowengineering graduates.

The report also comparesAPEGM salaries to those in Ontarioand Western Canada. While the datafrom the other provinces is from1999 or 2000, we can see thatEngineers and Geoscientists inOntario, Alberta and B.C. havesalaries averaging from 10 to 20percent higher than the Manitobasalaries. The comparable salaries inSaskatchewan (1999) are lower forthe starting positions and about 5%higher for more senior positions.

With respect to bonuses receivedin 2001, approximately 30% ofrespondents received bonuses lastyear. This is consistent with bonusesreported for the last three years. Aswell, the size of the bonus has aver-aged 15% of base salary over thatsame period.

Overall approximately 25% ofrespondents had reported a postgraduate degree. There were 56% ofGeoscientists reporting post gradu-ate degrees compared to 23% ofEngineers. The three most commondegrees were Masters 18%, PH.D4% and MBA 3%. The MBA degreehas the most significant impact onsalary and job responsibility as mea-sured by the APEGM point-ratingsystem.

Check out the final report at theAPEGM web site for more detailson salaries by gender, industry, com-pany size and sector along with theverbatim comments provided by themembers this year. ■

APEGM Salary Survey – 2002By: E.G. Parker, P.Eng.

W e all have attended engi-neering social functionswhere typical conversa-

tions meander from indicating one’scurrent employer and projects toreminiscing about work in junioryears. Of course, the more seniorengineers wear down the ears of thejunior engineers with their tales of“I remember walking thirty miles

uphill both ways through muddygumbo, at 90 below, on that jobsite...”! As usual, this constitutedmost of the social discussions at theNetworking Evening co-ordinatedby the Women’s Action Committeeon June 13, 2002.

However, the main focus of theevening was an exciting programaimed at recruiting more studentsinto the sciences and engineering.Colleen Flather and her team of stu-dents from the Access Program forWomen in Science and Engineeringentertained the group by skeweringballoons, mixing up somethingcalled “GAK,” and demonstratingthe wonders of hydrophobic andhydrophilic materials, the latterbeing familiar territory for the momsin the crowd (as it is an important

component of diapers!). Not onlywere we impressed with the waythey are able to make science “fun”but also in the way that this programhas expanded and has become aleader in promoting science andengineering.

The Access Program for Womenin Science and Engineering startedin 1990 with only two universitystudents doing science “RoadShows” for girls. It now employs 12undergraduate engineering and sci-ence students as co-ordinators, plusa full-time manager and part-timeassistant. The co-ordinators perform1700 presentations annually. Thatmakes it the largest science outreachprogram in Manitoba!

The program has been presentedto boys and girls in 68% of

Manitoba schools, and in 98% ofManitoba school divisions. In addi-tion, the co-ordinators provide pre-sentations at science fairs,professional-development confer-ences for teachers, and career days.2001 marked the launch of a newprogram, “Kid-Netic Energy,”which comprises two-week-longengineering and science day-campsin communities outside ofWinnipeg. The science campsencourage students to excel indesign and invention through explo-ration of science principles.

The program and its managershave won a number of local andnational awards. Future plans are toundertake research to measure theeffectiveness of the program atrecruiting students into science andengineering careers; to expand pro-grams focussing on science teachersand develop programs for the GirlGuides; and to replace the currentNSERC funding with a corporatesponsorship. ■

Wine, Cheese, and Hydrophilic Materials –Women’s Action Committee NetworkBy: C.S. Roberts, MBA, P.Eng.

In MemoriamThe Association has

received, with deep regret,notification of the death of

the following member.

William Charles(Chuck) Lee

■ Manitoba Association ofLandscape Architects (MALA)

Given the interface of membersof that profession with some pro-fessional engineers and profes-sional geoscientists involved inthe development of land andwater areas and in the preserva-tion of the environment,APEGM entered into an MOUwith MALA in 1998. It isfocused on clarifying the similar-ities and differences in the pro-fessions and developing aprocess to, where appropriate,foster the involvement of theprofessions on projects. APEGMhas been provided with a draft oftitle legislation developed byMALA. There were no meetingsbetween APEGM and MALA inthe past year.

Certificate of Authorization

The Certificate of Authorization (Cof A) is a provision under TheEngineering and GeoscientificProfessions Act (the Act) which pro-vides for a corporation whichemploys professional engineersand/or professional geoscientists topractise and to enter into a contractto provide professional services inits own name. Its purpose is to pro-vide for the regulation of corporatepractice (or group practice) as dis-tinct from the regulation of servicesprovided in the traditional sense byan individual professional engineeror professional geoscientist to theentity, and to enable the Association

to hold the entity accountable for itspractice.

One of the conditions of the C ofA is a requirement for professionalliability insurance coverage. Lastyear I reported that the availability ofcoverage and the costs of such insur-ance for companies operating insome sector was a problem and thatthe Association had approached theManitoba Government for an Actamendment to allow for alternatives.The Legislature recently adoptedsuch an amendment, and criteria andguidelines for acceptable alternativesto professional liability insurancewill now be developed.

With regard to professional lia-bility insurance, members who pro-vide services directly on anindividual basis, or who operate as asole proprietorship, are remindedthat if they do not have professionalliability insurance coverage in thesame amounts and on the sameterms and conditions as are requiredfor a C of A, the By-laws requirethat they must notify the client ofthe absence of such insurance andmust, before proceeding, obtainwritten authorization from eachclient to provide the professionalservices being contracted.

Declaration of Complianceand ProfessionalDevelopment

There will be a proposal for a newby-law before the membership at theupcoming AGM. If it is ratified,members in the practising categorywill be asked make the followingdeclaration at the time of the pay-ment of the annual dues for therenewal of registration:

“I declare that I have maintainedthe level of education and train-ing required to undertake theprofessional services that I cur-rently provide, or intend to pro-vide, to my employer andclients.”

It is to be noted that the wordingof the proposal is “asked” not“required” to declare, and that that itdoes not specify or provide for asanction for failure to comply.

The issues of mandatory report-ing of professional developmentactivities and enforced compliancewith a prescribed program havebeen before this Association before.In 1998, a by-law proposal to adopta mandatory program was approvedat the AGM for a letter ballot butwas defeated in the ballot by a ratioof two to one. The feedback fromthose opposed to the proposed pro-gram was that as professionals theycan be relied upon to fulfill theirindividual responsibilities to main-tain the appropriate level of compe-tence without a requirement todocument and report. The declara-tion proposed would be an annualreminder of that responsibility.

For those members that wouldprefer to use a system in carryingout that responsibility, theAssociation has developed aProfessional Development guide-line. The guideline along with asample form and planning example,is posted on the Association’s website. It is can also serve as tool forkeeping one’s resume up to date.Another feature of the website is the“PD Network”. It provides extensiveinformation on professional devel-

opment opportunities and links toprofessional and technical organiza-tions, institutions and courseproviders. Its “Upcoming Events”page typically provides informationon 100 opportunities and the links toother organizations offer severalhundred more.

With regard to the documenta-tion of professional developmentactivities, and as noted on otheroccasions, a number of the licensingjurisdictions, both in Canada andinternationally, require evidence ofcompliance with a mandatory pro-gram. I suggest that, in this age ofglobalization and specialization, awell-documented record of one’saccomplishments will become avaluable asset.

Software Engineering

Last year I reported that the disputebetween the Canadian Council ofProfessional Engineers (CCPE) andthe Association of Universities andColleges of Canada (AUCC) overthe use of the term “software engi-neering” in under-graduate univer-sity programs was unresolved andwith indications of little prospect ofresolution. It is worth noting that inthe interim, the CanadianEngineering Accreditation Board(CEAB) has now accredited sixdegree programs in software engi-neering (in Faculties of Engineer-ing) as satisfying the academicrequirement for registration as a pro-fessional engineer in Canada.

Conclusion

Once again, the year has been one ofchallenges and changes in the opera-tions of the Association. On thestaffing side, Ken Buhr, P. Eng.,Manager of Administration, retiredand William Boyce was hired. Alsohired was Shirley Bruce who re-places Elaine Ryan in MembershipAdministration and Accounting.

Over the years I have been con-tinually and consistently impressedwith the commitment and the self-less contributions of the volunteers,both elected and appointed, whoserve this Association. In particular,we benefit from the participation ofpersons who are neither engineersnor geoscientists, but who willinglyassist the Association in fulfilling itsmandate. Last but not least, I recog-nize and thank the staff of theAssociation office for their dedica-tion and hard work. As I have notedbefore, the “volunteer” componentof their participation on behalf ofyour professions is not generallyrecognized. ■

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 20024

Report of the ExecutiveDirector and Registrar Continued from page 1

P eople who hold MicrosoftCertified Systems Engineer(MCSE) designations could

face enforcement measures if theyfollow the recent advice ofMicrosoft Canada.

In July, Microsoft Canadaannounced it will continue to usethe term “engineer” as part of theMCSE designation, changing adecision made just a year ago fol-lowing discussions with theCanadian Council of ProfessionalEngineers (CCPE).

“CCPE is extremely disap-pointed with Microsoft’s announce-ment,” said Marie Lemay, P.Eng.,CEO of CCPE. “By reversing thisdecision and advising its certificateholders to use the full MCSE title, ithas become clear that Microsoft

Canada is no longer interested incontinuing to work with the engi-neering profession or in assisting itscertificate holders in avoiding theassociated enforcement issues.”

In May 2001, Microsoft agreedto advise Canadian holders of theMCSE certification not to call them-selves “engineers” or use the fulltitle “Microsoft Certified SystemEngineer.” It was a major steptoward preventing Canadian holdersof the MCSE certification frominadvertently breaking provincialand territorial laws, and was seen bythe engineering profession as a signof good corporate leadership.

It would appear that MicrosoftCanada is bowing to the pressure ofMCSE holders and the training andcertification organizations who have

been capitalizing on the intrinsicvalue of the term “engineer” withlittle regard for potentially mislead-ing the public.

According to publishedMicrosoft information, to secure theMCSE designation an individual isrequired to complete seven exami-nations. Depending on a person’sprevious experience, preparatorytraining leading to successful com-pletion of the examinations canrange from several days to severalmonths. This is far short of the four-year engineering degree required tobecome an engineer.

To protect the public, laws andregulations restricting the use of thetitles “engineer” and “engineering”

MCSE is NOT an Engineer in Canada

Continued on page 23

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 5

E very organization faces defin-ing moments over the courseof its lifetime. Those moments

may be the result of external chal-lenges, financial issues, or evenchanging demographics. Ultimately,the decisions an organization makesin response to the threats and oppor-tunities presented by those eventsshape its future and become a turn-ing point in its existence.

The Canadian Council ofProfessional Engineers (CCPE) andits member associations/ordre facedone of those defining moments inearly 2002 when changes toCanada’s evaluation criteria forskilled workers seeking landedimmigrant status in this country ledto a significant decline in CCPE’srevenue base.

Our first response was to reviewCCPE’s program and service mix,consider which programs and ser-vices could be delayed or eliminatedto reduce costs, and raise the possi-bility of a membership fee increasewith the associations/ordre. Theintent was to allow CCPE to con-tinue delivering its current programsand services, albeit at a somewhatreduced level. Although we sharp-ened our pencils and cut our pro-jected operating expensesdramatically, it soon became clearthat CCPE’s members would haveto consider an increase in assess-ment fees if we were to maintainour programs and services.

What ultimately occurred wasthat CCPE’s revenue crunch becamea catalyst for true change within ourorganization and an opportunity forus to better serve the needs of ourmember associations/ordre. Thanksto the cooperative efforts of associa-tion/ordre Presidents and ExecutiveDirectors, CCPE’s Board ofDirectors and committee Chairs,and CCPE staff, a situation thatcould have seriously hurt CCPE hasbecome a positive turning-point inthe history of our organization.

The fact that we reached thisturning-point is in many ways a tes-tament to the commitment and dedi-cation of the volunteers who serveCCPE and our member associa-tions/ordre. Our Board and FinanceCommittee had the foresight to rec-ognize that changes to the immi-grant selection process could affectthe revenues CCPE receives from its

Initial Assessment of EngineeringQualifications Program. We had setaside contingency reserve funds thatwill allow us to continue normaloperations in the short term as weturn the corner and reshape ourorganization. Most importantly, ourmember associations/ordre workedwith us to clearly identify the ser-vices and programs they valued, andhelped us to emerge as a strongerand more focused organization.

That process began in April,when CCPE met with the Presidentsand Executive Directors of the asso-ciations/ordre to review the currentmix of programs and services weoffer to the profession, and assesstheir importance. We also examinedCCPE’s overall mandate and theroles of our various committees.The goal was to determine what theassociations/ordre would like CCPEto do and be on their behalf, takinginto account the financial resourceswe had available.

Once this was done, CCPEdrafted a new budget and strategicplan based on the input provided bythe associations/ordre. The endresult is a blueprint for a leanerorganization, but one that is clearlyfocused on meeting the needs of itsmember associations/ordre.

I truly believe the collectivesolution we reached will result ingreater efficiency and a clearerdirection for CCPE, and enhanceour value to the Canadian engineer-ing profession. Will individual engi-neers notice any difference? Icertainly hope so, but only for thebetter.

CCPE will continue to offer allof its established services; universityaccreditation, professional guide-lines, statistical research, federalgovernment relations initiatives, andinsurance programs.

However, we will refocus ourinternational work. Our efforts tofacilitate greater mobility betweenCanada and the U.S. for qualifiedengineers will continue. This willinclude ongoing negotiations withMexico and Texas on our NAFTA(North American Free TradeAgreement) Mutual RecognitionDocument (MRD). We will alsocontinue developing a protocol forthe implementation of the APEC

CCPE CEO’s Message

Changing Times, PromisingTimes

ENCON is a proud supporter of the continuing pursuit of knowledge andprogress in the engineering profession.Working with engineers from acrossCanada, ENCON has been providingthe industry with professional liabilityinsurance since 1970.

As part of our ongoing partnership withCCPE, we are pleased to offer the$10,000 ENCON Scholarship. Awardedannually to an engineer returning touniversity to further his or her career incivil engineering, ENCON scholarshipwinners help advance the profession,through continuing education andresearch.

Applicants must be accepted orregistered in a university Faculty ofEngineering.

For further information, contact theCCPE National Scholarship Program

Applicationdeadline:

April 1, 2003

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers1100 – 180 Elgin StreetOttawa, Ontario K2P 2K3Tel: (613) 232-2474Fax: (613) 230-5759e-mail: member.services@ccpe.caWeb site: http://www.ccpe.ca

ENCON Group Inc.Suite 700, 350 Albert StreetOttawa, Ontario K1R 1A4Tel: (613) 786-2000 or Toll free: 800-267-6684Fax: (613) 786-2001Web site: www.encon.ca

$10,000 EngineeringScholarship

Continued on page 6

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 20026

(Asia-Pacific Economic Coopera-tion) Engineer Register in Canada.We’ve already made exciting head-way in both of these areas. Asalways, we will represent theCanadian engineering profession onthe international front and monitorthe trends affecting the engineeringprofession globally.

One of the major decisions wemade was to stand down both theCanadian Engineering ResourcesBoard and the Canadian Engineer-ing International Board. By refocus-ing in both of these areas, commit-tees of the CCPE Board of Directorswill be able to lead this work, withstrong staff support. This approachwill reduce expenditures but allowCCPE to continue providing strong

research and international programsto the associations/ordre.

Even with CCPE’s restructuring,a fee increase will be required for usto undertake the full mix of pro-grams and services our memberassociations/ordre have asked us toprovide on their behalf. A motionpassed by CCPE’s Board ofDirectors in May proposed that werequest a fee increase from the asso-ciations/ordre of $2.40 per each oftheir professional engineer membersin both 2004 and 2005, and an addi-tional $2 increase in 2006. Two ofour largest associations/ordre,Professional Engineers Ontario(PEO) and the Association ofProfessional Engineers, Geologistsand Geophysicists of Alberta(APEGGA) have already agreed tothe proposed increase. I am verypleased to report that the initial reac-

tion from our remaining memberassociations/ordre has also beenfavourable.

When all is said and done, thefinancial circumstances that initiallyseemed so detrimental have in factbrought our organization togetherand made us stronger.

As well as dealing with our fis-cal situation, CCPE has also beenclosely monitoring the federal gov-ernment’s Innovation Strategy. Thestrategy is very important to individ-ual engineers, as well as to the pro-fession. We continue to be at theforefront of innovation in Canada,and circumstances could not be bet-ter than they are today for the engi-neering profession to play an evenmore important role. Technology isadvancing by leaps and bounds, oureconomy is solid, and our govern-ments, both provincial and federal,

are fully supporting what we engi-neers do best – innovation.

For our part, CCPE is assessingthe two Innovation Strategy papersco-released in February by IndustryCanada and Human ResourcesDevelopment Canada. The papersoutline factors that the governmentbelieves will drive economic growthand social development over thenext decade, including the goals,milestones and targets that willimprove innovation and skills andlearning in Canada. CCPE’sGovernment Relations Committee isstudying both papers to determinewhere the engineering professionfits in this plan, and how best toposition ourselves to ensure that theengineering role in innovation isgiven due recognition.

I look forward to updating youfurther in the coming months. ■

T his year’s APEGM SpringGolf Tournament took placeon Tuesday, June 11th, at

Bridges Golf Course. As always, thetournament was a resounding suc-cess in regards to participation, with35 teams and 140 golfers makingthe ultimate sacrifice by beingabsent from the office for _ of theday. As has been the trend the pastfew years, we managed to squeezethe tournament in between days ofrain. The morning threatened rain,with quite a few golfers calling theAPEGM office to inquire if the tour-nament was still a go, as the forecastwas not favourable. Once again,Mother Nature favoured the Son’s ofMartha as the afternoon saw thebreak-up of the cloud cover, fol-lowed by warm sunshine.

After the golf, the festivitiesmoved into the banquet hall. TheLandon Cup (1st place) and SullivanCup (2nd place) trophies wereawarded by current APEGM Vice-President, LawrenceFerchoff. The first placeteam of Robert McBain,Brad McCormac, CharlesEvancio (missing in thephoto) and Rob Sachowskiwill surely be looking forthe rare three-peat nextyear, having won in 2001as well. The second placeteam of Dana Bell, DonLecuyer, Chris Peck andBob Coldwell is anotheryearly powerhouse havingreached the podium in pasttournaments as well. Therewill undoubtedly be discus-

sions over the winter about “rigged”teams amongst the committee mem-bers (kidding, there is no competi-tive nature in engineers). Once againthis year the members attending the

golf tournament overwhelminglysupported the KidSport and MSSociety’s fundraising efforts.

The Sports Committee wouldalso like to thank the companies,listed below, that supported our tour-nament by sponsoring a hole and/ordonating prizes. Our apologies if wehave missed anyone.

2002 APEGM Spring Golf TournamentBy: M.E. Baril, P.Eng.

Above: First Place winners. Left: Second Place winners

DPIC Companies – Oldfield Kirby Esau Inc.Insurance Brokers; UMA Engineering Ltd.; Nelson RiverConstruction Inc.; Azon Canada Inc.; Lewis InstrumentsLtd.; Pauwels Canada Inc.; Armtec Ltd.; NationalTesting Laboratories; KGS Group; Cansel; Inland PipeLimited; Vector Corrosion Technologies; Superior TrussCo. Ltd.; APEGM; Lafarge Canada Inc.; Golf Central;Wardrop Engineering Inc.; Earth Tech Canada; AcresInternational Limited; Concrete Restoration Services;Professor Golf Products, Inc.; Groundstar Systems(1987) Ltd.; Flanders Insurance Services Ltd.; EF MoonConstruction ■

CCPE CEO’s ReportContinued from page 5

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 7

MELOCHE MONNEX, which offers you thehome and automobile insurance program endorsedby CCPE, is proud to be associated with thisscholarship program.

Through the CCPE National Scholarship Program, MELOCHE MONNEX offers two scholar-ships annually in the amount of $7,500 each to pro-vide financial assistance to engineers returningto univers i ty for fur ther s tudy or research in a fie ld o ther than engineer ing.Candidates must be accepted or registered in aFaculty other than Engineering.

For further information contact the CCPE National Scholarship Program Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, 1100-180 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K3Tel.: (613) 232-2474 Fax: (613) 230-5759E-mail: member.services@ccpe.caWebsite: www.ccpe.ca

APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 1st, 2003

TWO

...to support you

on your path to greater knowledge

Scholarships of$7,500$7,500

I n the article in the April 2002 KeystoneProfessional, Professor Doering puts hisfinger on the very essence of Winnipeg

flood protection. That is, how muchprotection is enough? The InternationalJoint Commission struggled with thisquestion and concluded that the designflood “should be the highest that can beeconomically justified or, at a minimum,

the flood of record, the 1826 flood”. Selecting an appropriate floodprotection level for Winnipeg, however, will not be an engineering oreconomic decision but a public policy decision. Perhaps it would behelpful to review some of the approaches that could be taken.

As an artifact of the former federal-provincial Flood DamageReduction program, the regulatory flood in Canada is the 100-yearflood or higher. In Manitoba the regulatory flood is the 100-year flood,or in the case of the Red River valley, the 1997 flood – roughly a 100-year flood. New structures built in the floodplain must be flood-proofed to provincial requirements. Structures in communitiesprotected by an engineered dyke or other equivalent measure do notrequire flood proofing.

As a first case, a flood protection measure could be designed toprotect against the regulatory flood. Examples are the Red River valleyring dykes constructed after the 1979 flood and upgraded after the1997 flood. These dykes protect against the regulatory flood plusfreeboard. In rare cases a flood protection measure may not protecteven against the regulatory flood, the Carman Floodway being oneexample.

In a second case, a flood protection measure may protect against aflood higher than the regulatory flood. The dykes now underconstruction at Grand Forks and East Grand Forks will protect thosecities against the 210-year flood while the regulatory flood remains asthe 100-year flood. The approach taken in this case was to select thedesign flood as the one at which the benefit-cost ratio is 1.0. (Underfavorable economic conditions, the US Army Corps of Engineers willdesign flood protection measures up to a “standard project flood” –roughly half a probable maximum flood.)

This was the concept for the original Red River Floodway. It wasdesigned to accommodate what was felt to be the 160-year flood,roughly equivalent to the 1997 flood. (Determining a 100-year or otherspecified flood is fraught with problems.) The approach used was toselect a capacity at which an additional dollar of expenditure did notproduce an additional dollar of flood control benefit. Applying thissame economic criterion under today’s level of urban developmentleads to a 500-year Floodway capacity identified in the studiesconducted by KGS Group for the International Joint Commission.

A third approach is to use a design flood based on some physicalconstraint or circumstance and this was the approach adopted by KGSGroup, and since expanded upon. At the pre-feasibility level of studythere was evidence that Floodway expansion would be constrained tothe 500-year flood on account of backwater north of the city. A 1000-year flood was also selected because this was a flood that could bereasonably expected to occur based on an examination of hydrologicalvariables.

The subsequent work (which is still at a feasibility level of effort)carried out by a group of companies led by KGS Group concluded thatthe downstream constraint was not as severe as originally thought andthat Floodway expansion to the 1000-year flood appeared quitefeasible. Further, by operating the waters impounded upstream of theFloodway Inlet Structure as a reservoir, it was possible to provide someadditional flood control. That is, capacities that could protect the cityagainst the 700- year and 1200-year floods.

Letter to theEditor

Continued on page 9

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 20028

T he continuing growth of theInternet and ElectronicCommerce has sparked inter-

est in the latest developments withrespect to electronic signatures.About 50 people attended a break-fast meeting sponsored byAPEGM’s Professional Develop-ment committee on May 15 at theViscount Gort to hear the updatefrom Lynn Romeo of the provincialDepartment of Justice.

Romeo said people and businessowners still want to know if they cantransact business, exchange elec-tronic documents, and enter con-tracts on-line, and still be assuredthat their contracts are valid. TheManitoba government passed the

Electronic Commerce and Informa-tion, Consumer Protection Amend-ment and Manitoba EvidenceAmendment Act on August 18,2000. The Justice Department,according to Romeo, expects thatPart II of the Act that deals with spe-cific legislative and regulatoryrequirements will be proclaimed inthe near future.

Lynn Romeo pointed out thatthere are four main principles under-lying the Act. Firstly, the legislationis enabling only. It allows but doesnot require anyone to use or acceptelectronic communications.Secondly, the Act is technology neu-tral. It does not set out requirementsfor specific technology or for spe-

cific ways of complying with therules. Thirdly, certain parts of theAct apply to other statutes and regu-lations on an opt-in basis. Fourthly,Electronic Commerce often involvestransactions taking place acrossprovincial and international borders.The need for harmonization of thelaw is therefore important.

Romeo provided some detailsabout provisions respecting elec-tronic signatures. She indicated that,where a document is being providedto a person other than a public body,the electronic signature is subject tothe person’s consent, and she gavean example. By assuming that acommercial lease must be signed bythe landlord and the tenant, it would

be up to both parties to agree onwhether electronic signatures ontheir lease would be acceptable. Ifan electronic signature is requiredon a document being provided to apublic body (for example theDepartment of Highways), the elec-tronic signature is subject to thedepartment’s information-technol-ogy requirements prescribed by reg-ulation.

Romeo concluded her presenta-tion with some details on amend-ments to the Manitoba EvidenceAct. She said the amendments areintended to clarify the rules foraccepting electronic documents,information, and signatures as evi-dence in the courts. ■

The Electronic Commerce and Information ActBy: W.T. Jackson, P.Eng.

F or the majority of people in thewestern world, our society isregarded as intelligent and

technologically-advanced – a globalcommunity that has achieved manyimpressive social and industrialaccomplishments. Ironicallyenough, at the same time people arecasually aware of the horrible condi-tions that still exist in many areas ofthe world. These places are devoidof even basic forms of technology orindustry and, for the people whodwell in these conditions, daily lifeis a struggle for survival. Whilepoverty, disease, and famine arerampant in under-privileged com-munities, the underlying cause ofthese problems lies in a wideninggap between the third world’s levelof development and the technologi-cal achievements of the first world.This technology gap is of increasingconcern because it is the one factorthat, above all others, traps thesecountries in their stagnant cycle offloundering development.

Engineers Without Borders(EWB) is a non-profit organizationdeveloped to directly address theproblem of the technology gap.Founded two years ago, EWB’svision is to increase the quality oflife in underdeveloped nations byproviding practical engineering solu-tions to the problems these commu-nities face. Rather than supplying aidand relief to impoverished areas, the

goal is to provide the people with thetechnology necessary to help themgrow and develop beyond their dailystruggle for survival. To achieve thisgoal, EWB relies on a vast untappedresource that is readily availablethroughout every province in Canada– the hearts and minds of willingengineering students.

EWB is already well-establishedacross Canada. Currently there are15 student chapters set up atCanadian Universities in a vast net-work that stretches from BritishColumbia to Nova Scotia. Thesechapters operate as independentgroups under the guidance of thecore entity, EWB Canada, which isbased in Toronto. While each chap-ter has its own unique identity, themain goals of each student-operatedgroup are the same; their primarypurpose is to organize and facilitateresearch groups that will work col-laboratively on scalable solutions topractical problems in the thirdworld. The main considerations ofscalable solution projects is toaddress a widespread need and todevelop feasible solutions that canbe implemented in a variety of dif-ferent communities worldwide. Forthese projects to be successful, it iscritical for student chapters to enlistthe support of industry professionalsto ensure that project solutions arepractical and achievable.

This is my third year of mechan-

ical engineering at the University ofManitoba and I have a keen interestin third-world development chal-lenges. EWB provides an ideal wayfor students to get involved in tech-nical problems that exist in real-world settings, with implicationsthat could potentially affect a widerange of communities globally. Theorganization offers practical designexperience and encourages studentsto become more active in the engi-neering community, as well asinvolving local industries in EWB-related projects. At present an offi-cial student chapter does not exist atthe University, but I am not alone inmy interest for EWB. I belong to alarge group of students who havetaken notice of this organization,and many faculty members havealready pledged their support once astudent chapter is officially started.However, to be truly successful, achapter must have support from theprofessional engineers involved inlocal industry.

There are numerous ways forindustry professionals to becomeinvolved in EWB. One of the easiestand most effective routes is to sim-ply enlist as a technical advisor.Advisors submit their name andfield of expertise to a nationaldatabase accessible to EWB stu-dents exclusively. In the event that aresearch project is conducted in afield of study, any professional in

that particular area of expertise maybe contacted to provide support andsuggestions. The next level of pro-fessional involvement is mentorship,which is equivalent to a more in-volved version of the technical advi-sor’s duties. Mentors play a greaterrole on research teams, usually con-tributing three hours a week of theirtime to a project. On a nationallevel, EWB requires technical over-seers to review design projects sub-mitted by students, and ensure thatthe solutions are feasible and worththe costs of implementation.

The importance of EWB is two-fold; it seeks to increase the qualityof life in third world and developingcountries while enabling Canadianengineering students to apply theirskills to real-world challenges. Thepromise that EWB holds for theUniversity of Manitoba can bedemonstrated by considering what ithas already accomplished at otherinstitutions. Currently, EWB isinvolved with one associate chapterin the development of anInformation and CommunicationVan designed to bring internetaccess into remote third world com-munities. This is an invaluable pro-ject considering that the cost ofinternet access can be upwards of$200 dollars a month in some areas.Other projects underway include theintroduction of low-power lighting

Engineers Without Borders – Student Chapter Seeks toBridge Technology Gap in Third World DevelopmentBy: Christopher Evans

Continued on page 9

in schoolhouses in Bangalore, India,and the implementation of a waterpurification and energy productionplant in Molinos, Chile. These pro-jects are all examples of howCanadian students alongside EWBhave been able to bridge the tech-nology gap and raise the quality oflife in these areas. Through the jointefforts of students, professors, and

industry professionals, the Facultyof Engineering at the University ofManitoba can work towardsempowering both students andinhabitants of the developing coun-tries, in the hopes of one day bring-ing both worlds to a commonground.

For more information on volun-teer projects offered by EWB, visittheir website at www.ewb-isf.org, oremail the University of ManitobaEWB students group at ewb_mani-toba@hotmail.com. ■

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 9

Scholarship Competition 2003The Canadian Council of Professional Engineersinvites engineers to enter the2003 National Scholarships Program Competition.

Eligibility RequirementsApplicants must be:▲ Either a P.Eng., Eng. or ing.▲ Pursuing postgraduate university studies

and research.

CCPE-Encon Scholarship

CCPE-Manulife Financial Scholarships

CCPE-Meloche Monnex Scholarships

Application Deadline — April 1, 2003

Value:

Number:

Field:

Stipulations:

Value:

Number:

Field:

Stipulations:

Value:

Number:

Field:

Stipulations:

$10,000OneCivil engineeringCandidates must be accepted or registeredin a Faculty of Engineering

$10,000ThreeEngineeringCandidates must be accepted or registeredin a Faculty of Engineering

$7,500TwoA field other than engineeringCandidates must be accepted or registeredin a faculty other than engineering

Application forms available from:CCPE National Scholarship ProgramCanadian Council of Professional Engineers1100-180 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K3Tel: (613) 232-2474, Fax: (613) 230-5759E-mail: member.services@ccpe.caWeb site: www.ccpe.ca

The selection of the 1:700 Floodway expansion concepttherefore was not arbitrary, rather it was based on one engineeringcriterion and one economic one. Such a capacity, however, couldstill be deemed to be socially unacceptable. For that reason a largercapacity Floodway continued to be included in the recentlycompleted study.

A full feasibility study will unquestionably deal with all theengineering and economic issues that must be examined indetermining an appropriate level of Winnipeg flood protection. Tothat must be added the social and political considerations necessaryfor a successful project.

If we had perfect knowledge of future flood conditions it wouldbe easy to carry out an engineering and economic assessment, andmake the “correct” decision. In retrospect, the construction of theRed River Floodway, completed in 1968 and used for the first timein 1969 and many times since, was an inspired public policydecision. Consider the public comment, however, if it had beencompleted in 1968 and not used for many years. Those involved inthe project would have been castigated as spendthrifts and every fewyears there would have been a picture in the paper of the ‘whiteelephant’. Such is the dilemma of decision-making with respect tomitigating natural hazards.

Studies conducted thus far have shortened the list of feasiblemeasures to protect Winnipeg against rare floods to two (Floodwayexpansion and the Ste. Agathe structure) and shown that bothmeasures meet normal economic tests. Clearly there is a local, andperhaps even a national, consensus that additional flood protectionfor Winnipeg is warranted and that expanding the Floodway is thepreferred option. The extent of that expansion still has to bedetermined taking into account input from those who benefit, thosewho are harmed, and those who will pay for the project. Even in anera of balanced government budgets, resources are not limitless andpublic pressures for expenditures on matters other than flood controlmust be considered.

Finally, there is one other consideration. In North America,governments have provided relatively low levels of flood protectionat public expense but have given generously to those who areaffected by flooding. Other countries provide much higher levels ofprotection but relatively modest government support to thoseaffected by a flood. As we move towards the absolutely justifiableimprovements to Winnipeg’s flood defenses, we should alsocontemplate to what extent we wish to subsidize people’s desire tolive on floodplains.

APEGM members should take pride in the informed debatebeing led by Professors Doering, Booy and Kuiper. Our publicpolicy decisions will be the better for it.

R. A. Halliday, P. Eng.

Letter to the Editor Continued from page 7

Engineers WithoutBordersContinued from page 8

SEPTEMBER 200210 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

A dmissions activity during the past year wasdominated by changes to the Pre-Registration Program.

Since 1998, the Experience ReviewCommittee has been looking at kinder, gentlersanctions for non-compliance with thisAssociation’s Pre-Registration Program. InNovember, the Admissions Policy ReviewCommittee – a Task Force of Councillorsappointed in November, 2000 to investigate theAssociation’s entire registration process – pre-sented a report to Council. The report wasaccepted by Council, and Executive DirectorDave Ennis set about addressing the issues identi-fied in the report. To date, his proposals havereceived mixed reviews from the AdmissionsCommittees and staff; but the process continues.

In November, the Experience ReviewCommittee, having wrestled with the ramifica-tions of and the precedent set by Council in 1999when it heard and ruled on an appeal by an EITwho had not complied with the Pre-RegistrationProgram, came up with a policy whereby anyonewho had not enrolled as an MIT immediatelyupon commencing employment would be able toclaim up to 12 months’ Pre-Enrollment experi-ence (inclusive of any pre-graduation experience

they may have obtained). This, of course, has cre-ated a serious inequity in that MITs who enrollone year late are not penalized, but MITs whoenroll on time but fail to report on time are penal-ized. Presumably, this will be addressed by theExecutive Director as he changes admissions pol-icy in response to the Admissions Policy ReviewCommittee’s report.

In November, also, the Experience ReviewCommittee accepted a recommendation from theMIT Committee and broadened the professionalservice requirement of the Pre-RegistrationProgram to include certain community serviceactivities.

The MIT Committee also attempted, this year,to address the important matter of supervisordelinquency, by conducting a survey. Manychanges had been made, including databasechanges that allowed us to generate lists of namesof, and conduct regular follow-up with, overduesupervisors, and our recommending to MITs thatthey consult with their supervisors and submittheir forms together. Despite this, there were, atthe end of July, 199 supervisor reports overdue –35 of them by more than one year. This meansthat fully one-third of our MITs had not receivedthe feedback on their experience they deserved

from us. Given these terrible numbers, and basedon the survey, we are looking at ways to improvethe Supervisor reporting form – again.

In April, a special meeting was held to discussthe “accreditation” challenges of foreign-trainedengineers. The meeting was conducted byManitoba Education, Training, and Youth. It fea-tured the Director of Settlement and LabourMarket Services, who provided the government’sperspective on immigration, and stressed the needto ensure that qualified immigrants are able towork in Manitoba in their areas of expertise.Immigrant engineers, Committee Chairs,Councillors, and representatives from industry,the University of Manitoba, and CCPE all partici-pated in a facilitated workshop on how to betterassess the competencies of immigrant engineers.This was, by all accounts, an extremely informa-tive meeting.

In July, the Academic Review Committeefinally revised its operating process to moreclosely align with CCPE’s July, 2001 NationalAdmissions Guideline and the way the rest of thecountry operates. Significant changes to the pro-cess include: the use of a prescription table, ratherthan a case-by-case analysis, for assigning exami-nations, with the candidates normally choosingthe examinations they will write; drastically tight-ening up the examination schedule – from thecurrent average of two per year to two per semi-annual session; allowing the Committee to waivethe remaining confirmatory examinations basedon good performance on the first two; and intro-ducing an interview which may result in the waiv-ing of examinations for anyone with ten years ormore experience.

Director ofAdmissions’ ReportS.M. Matile, P.Eng.

Continued on page 13

If you’re like most people, you have taken great care to protectyour assets — your home, your car, your valuables. But what aboutyour most important asset — yourself, and your ability to earn aliving? There is huge value in protecting yourself — and we canadd to that value.

At Maritime Life, we offer engineers disability insurance at a pricethe rest of the market can’t match.

Find out more about the CCPE-sponsored disability benefit plan. Itwon’t hurt to call us!

Contact Maritime Life at 1-866-260-8442 or visit us atwww.maritimelife.ca/ccpebenefits

Program sponsored by:

what you value most.

Inquire today ... ContactGordon J. Brennan, WinnipegTel: (204) 985-1140 Fax: (204) 985-1141g.brennan@gbps.mb.ca

Protect best

11SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

M uch time and effort over the last year hasbeen spent on discussion related to nec-essary increases in member dues to

CCPE. Over the past number of years memberdues remained unchanged while the CCPEreceived significant funds from the FederalGovernment for providing the initial assessmentprogram for perspective immigrating engineers toCanada. With new legislation passed in 2001 thissource of revenue will cease. To replace thatsource of revenue an increase in member duesfrom $8.65 per year per member to $17.30 peryear per member was considered by the Board.This is not, in my opinion, a significant amountfor any professional engineer to pay. The discus-sion and debate ensued because the relevance and value of CCPE to members is not clearlyunderstood.

The following is my summary of activitiesundertaken by CCPE on behalf of its memberorganizations and professional engineers in general.

Accreditation

To support consistent and rigorous standards forengineering education and admission to the pro-fession in Canada, CCPE establishes national cri-teria and procedures for the accreditation ofundergraduate engineering programs in Canadaand accredits programs that meet those criteria.The accreditation system monitoring helps CCPEmember organizations to assess the academicqualifications of candidates applying for licen-sure.

National Guidelines And Standards

To help its members adopt and follow consistentregulatory procedures and practices that supportfull national mobility for professional engineerswithin Canada, the CCPE develops concensus-based national guidelines for the adoption and useof the associations. It supports the developmentand implementation of national examinations,evaluates engineering programs offered outsideCanada, develops and publishes the CCPE exami-nation syllabus, amongst other things. These pro-grams and services help associations to fulfill theirmandates to regulate the practice of engineeringwithin their jurisdiction in the public interest.

Research

The CCPE has established an ongoing researchprogram to help its members stay abreast ofemerging issues as well as emerging areas ofengineering and plan effectively for the future.These research reports include trends in annualengineering enrollment and degrees awarded; thenature of engineering work in Canada; rates ofengineering licensure; engineering employmentand demographic trends; the import and export of

engineering services. The results of the mostrecent surveys on engineering employment andactivities in Canada will be released within thenext few months.

International Mobility Agreements

The CCPE negotiates international agreements onbehalf of its members. The agreements helpCCPE’s members to evaluate the professionalqualifications of foreign trained engineers seekinglicensure in Canada and Canadian engineers totake full advantage of the international opportuni-ties created by free trade.

Relevance

To support the regulatory work of the associationsand enhance the relevance, value and publicrecognition of the profession’s regulatory system,right to title, and high practice standards, CCPEhas developed a detailed report on relevance withfive recommendations to enhance the relevance ofthe engineering licensure and regulation. Theserecommendations include:

■ The establishment of sector based industryliaison councils;

■ Creating a new postgraduate internship pro-gram that will enhance the value accorded tothe P.Eng.;

■ Fostering close relationships with Universityand Engineering Faculty and engaging theirsupport to promote the P.Eng.;

■ Developing an exciting description of engi-neering work, and;

■ Streamlining the application process for licen-sure to allow multi-jurisdiction licensurethrough a single application.

Government Relations

CCPE has established an ongoing governmentrelations program to proactively influencenational policies, legislation and regulations thathave the potential to affect the engineering profes-sional or its ability to regulate the practice ofengineering in the public interest. This is a newinitiative in the last couple of years that has beenvery well received by the Federal Government.

Communications And PublicRecognition

To increase the public profile and recognition ofCanadian engineers and engineering as well asthe engineering profession, CCPE has establisheda national communications program as well as anational awards program. We have been silent formuch too long. The public awareness program isonly scratching the surface with much work tocome.

A National Promotion Campaign to raiseawareness of the P.Eng. license among engineer-

ing students and the employers of engineers hasbeen launched.

Member Services

On behalf of its members, the CCPE sponsors awide range of cost effective insurance, retirement,investment and other products assigned to meetthe needs of professional engineers. Most mem-bers are familiar with these and the new programofficially started in May 2002 for secondary pro-fessional liability insurance for all members.

I believe most engineers would agree that theabove is certainly worth the dues that we pay tothe organization.

In February the Board of CCPE instigated thecontingency plan established precisely for such afinancial situation by drawing on reserves to fundthe balance of the fiscal year 2002. Through dis-cussions with the member organizations at meet-ings in April 2002 and at the AGM in May 2002,it was agreed that reserves would be drawn downto offset the revenue shortfall for the years 2002,2003 and 2004 with assessments increasing in2004 at $2.40 per member, $2.40 in 2005, $2.00in 2006. At 2005 the budget would be at approxi-mately a break even position.

Through this exercise CCPE will hold the lineon expenses over the next few years.

The new strategic plan was introduced inNovember 2001. It was debated and revised inlight of the above described economic realities.The strategic plan was again discussed at themeeting of members in April and at the annualmeeting in May. The new budgetary reality andstrategic plan are in harmony.

We have a very dedicated and industrious staffat CCPE working in the best interest ofProfessional Engineers. As is the Association,CCPE is blessed with hard working volunteerscommitted to the mission and vision of ourNational body.

In summary, the engineering profession is fac-ing many challenges. I think the most significantis to appear relevant to all engineers, EITs andpotential members. To that end I solicit every pro-fessional engineer to be an ambassador of the pro-fession for the benefit of the public we serve andthe membership as a whole. ■

CCPE Director’sReport P. Washchyshyn, P.Eng.

APEGM is the leaderand a facilitator of the process thatensures excellence in engineering,geoscience, andapplied technology for the public ofManitoba.

A P E G M V I S I O N

12 SEPTEMBER 2002THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

T he Canadian Council of ProfessionalGeoscientists (CCPG) is an autonomousfederation of the provincial and territorial

professional associations. It exists solely to pro-vide services to its member associations and doesnot license or certify individual geoscientists. It isdesigned to assist the member associations in ful-filling their common objectives of: 1) coordinat-ing admission standards and other activitiesaffecting Canadian professional geoscientists(particularly their mobility), 2) acting as a forumwithin which common issues are addressed and3) representing Canadian professional geoscien-tists nationally and internationally. Each provin-cial and territorial professional association isrepresented on CCPG by an appointed director.

Geoscientists are currently regulated in 11 ofthe 13 Canadian provinces and territories. As ofJune 30, 2002 more than 6,000 geoscientists werelicensed as Professional Geoscientists (P.Geo.),Professional Geologists (P.Geol.) or ProfessionalGeophysicists (P.Geoph.) under combined engi-neering and geoscience legislation in Alberta,British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,Newfoundland, Northwest Territories, Nunavutand Saskatchewan. Additionally, approximately500 geoscientists have been licensed by the Ordredes géologues du Québec (OGQ) as géologues(géo) under legislation that came into force onAugust 23, 2001. The “in force” date for licensureof geoscientists in Ontario is Aug 30, 2002, withcorporations operating in Ontario requiring a C ofA after March 31, 2003. In Nova Scotia, theGeoscience Profession Act was passed by the leg-islature on May 28, 2002. It is estimated that 10,000 geoscientists will be registered in Canadawithin 2 to 3 years.

A CCPG Board of Directors Meeting held inEdmonton, Alberta, April 27, 2002, dealt with thefollowing topics:

1) Foreign Qualified Persons (QPs)under National Instrument 43-101

Most of the difficult aspects of the Foreign QPissue were resolved at the previous CCPGDirector’s meeting in November 2001. Althoughsome concern remains about who is a QP on aforeign property, this issue has largely beenresolved by the decision by most ConstituentAssociations (CAs) that the “practice of geo-science” takes place in the jurisdiction where themineral property is located. Thus, reports issuedon properties located outside Canada are not theresponsibility of the local CA’s and the decisionas to who may be a QP on a foreign propertyrightly belongs to the Canadian SecuritiesAdministrators (CSA). The Staff Liaison Group(SLG) asked CCPG to not offer any advice toCSA on who may be considered to be QPs as thismight be misconstrued as certifying individuals orgroups of individuals as qualified to practice in

Canada or equivalent to professionals licensed inCanada.

Some aspects of NI43-101 are being rewrittenby the CSA to more accurately represent theintent of the instrument with regard to foreignQPs. It was not the intent of NI43-101 to requirethat QPs from foreign jurisdictions have identicallicensing arrangements as those in Canada. Theproblem for CSA has been that, as presently writ-ten, NI43-101 stipulates that a QP must belong toa legally recognized licensing body (the Canadianmodel). For geoscientists such legally recognizedentities, with few exceptions, only exist inCanada. CCPG and CCPE have taken the positionthat this is strictly a CSA issue and not the prob-lem of the CA’s in Canada.

2) Oil and Gas Securities Task Force

A draft report from the Oil and Gas SecuritiesTask Force with a proposal for a NationalInstrument (NI51-101) was circulated to CAsearly in 2002. Both APEGS and APEGGA havereturned comments and concerns to the Oil andGas Securities Task Force. Similar to NI43-101,NI51-101 proposes that reports to securitiesexchanges be signed off (sealed) by a qualifiedindividual, referred to as a Qualified Evaluator(QE). The QE (likely a P.Geo, P.Eng or P. Geoph)will have similar credentials to a QP. Hopefully,the issue of how to identify foreign individuals toact as QEs will be dealt with based on experiencegained under NI43-101. It is anticipated thatunder NI51-101 P.Eng’s will form a significantproportion of QE’s.

3) Inter-Association MobilityAgreement (IAMA) and IncidentalPractice

The IAMA signed in Saint Andrews in June,2001, appears to be having some start-up difficul-ties. Jurisdiction are handling transfers in differentways with time to process transfers ranging froma few days to several weeks. Those in which thetransfers are most timely are handled by staff(e.g., NWT & Nunavut, APEGS and APEGN)whereas those that are processed slowest are han-dled by volunteer committees (e.g., APEGM,APEGGA, APEGBC). Transfers by APEGNS,APEGN, NWT and Nunavut are processeddirectly by Executive Directors/Registrars withtransfers often processed in a day.

One of the issues stopping or slowing transfersis the absence of the PPE requirement for grand-fathered geoscientists in some CA’s (e.g.,APEGM, APEGS). Although APEGS, APEGNand APEGNB do not check for fulfillment of thePPE requirement for geoscientists, APEGBC andAPEGGA automatically screen geoscientists forcompletion of a PPE exam.

In addition, APGO is requiring files of all geo-

scientists requesting transfers be sent to them forreview. This is causing considerable delays and,in some instances, is preventing transfers fromtaking place. APGO indicates that they arerequired by their legislation to examine documen-tation (in particular references) for acceptanceinto APGO. This is a problem because in somejurisdictions original documents are not kept oncethe individual has been accepted. The need tocheck original documents appears to contradictthe intent of the IAMA.

At its November 2001 meeting CCPGDirector’s suggested that Incidental Practice (IP)should be given more consideration by the staffliaison group (SLG). At the May 2002 meetingthe SLG pointed out that IP’s require changes tothe legislation governing the individual CA’s and,thus, would require revisions to 12 pieces of leg-islation to achieve the same result as MultiJurisdictional Registration.

4) Multi Jurisdictional Registration(MJR)

The SLG suggested that CCPG pursue MultiJurisdictional Registration (NationalRegistration/CanGeo) rather than IP’s because itwould not require any changes to the CA’s legis-lation and could be achieved in a shorter timeframe. One suggestion was that there be two cate-gories of registration, one for the local CA and anadditional category for those geoscientists want-ing MJR. In order to achieve MJR the SLG sug-gested that the CA’s would need to agree on:■ a set of Standards (Academic/Experience) that

meet the minimum requirements of all mem-ber associations.

■ agreement on the Professional Practice andEthics (PPE) requirement.

■ mechanisms for dealing with discipline andinvestigation of MJR geoscientists.

■ rules to govern how expenses for disciplineare allocated.

■ standard requirements for continuing profes-sional development.

■ a mechanism for sharing MJR revenue (someCA’s depend on out-of-jurisdiction registra-tions to fund their activities; e.g., 60% of rev-enue for NWT association comes fromnon-residents).

■ consistent rules governing permission to con-sult (C of A insurance issue etc.)

A recommendation was made that since MJRis so important to geoscientists that funding besought from HRDC for a task force to study thisissue. Letters from all interested parties (variousCA’s, CCPG, CCPE, Geological Association ofCanada (GAC), Canadian Geological Council(CGC), Canadian Sedimentary and PetroleumGeologists (CSPG), Prospectors and DevelopersAssociation of Canada (PDAC), CanadianSecurities Administrators (CSA) etc.) to HRDCin support of this initiative would be important.

5) Status of International CooperationAgreements

International Cooperation Agreements are animportant first step towards international mobility.

Manitoba Canadian Council of Professional GeoscientistsDirector’s ReportA.H. Bailes, P.Geo

Continued on page 13

13SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

Such agreements allow the evaluation and recog-nition of foreign geoscience qualifications inCanada and conversely, lead to qualifications ofCanadian geoscientists being recognized abroadthus securing Canadian practitioners’ place in for-eign markets. It is simply a matter of time, ascountries around the world adopt various forms ofgeoscience licensure/certification, that foreignmarkets could be closed to Canadian practitionersif methods of reciprocal recognition of qualifica-tions are not enacted.

The Canadian Geoscience Standards Board(CGSB) was asked at the meeting in November2001 to turn its attention to Section D of its man-date which is “to ascertain the equivalency ofaccreditation programs in other countries, in orderto recommend mutual recognition agreementswith foreign bodies and to monitor the activitiesof those bodies with which mutual recognitionagreements have been signed”. Unfortunately thechairman of CGSB has resigned and this activityhas not been undertaken.

CCPG has signed Cooperation Agreementswith the American State Board of Geologists(ASBOG), the American Institute of ProfessionalGeologists (AIPG and the Institute of Geologistsof Ireland (IGI). Drafts of CooperationAgreements have been submitted to andfavourably received by the Geological Society ofLondon (GeolSoc), European Federation ofGeologists (EFG), the Australian Institute ofGeoscientists (AIG), and the AustralasianInstitute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM).The current focus for developing cooperationagreements is with South Africa including theSouth African Council of Natural ScientificProfessions (SACNASP), the South AfricanMineral Resource Committee (SAMREC) andthe South African Institute of Mining andMetallurgy (SAIMM).

The proposal to create a new membership sta-tus, “International Affiliate”, for CCPG was notratified at the CCPG AGM. The primary purposeof this designation was to provide a reciprocal“membership” arrangement with ASBOG tofacilitate acquisition of information from ASBOGand permit CCPG affiliates (CAs) to overseeASBOG board exams for Canadian geologists.The latter is currently difficult, costly and timeconsuming for geoscientists wishing to registerwith ASBOG. The “International Affiliate” membership category, if passed, would haverequired changes to CA’s by-laws and requiredthe CA’s to proctor the ASBOG board exams fortheir members.

6) Miscellaneous Issues

■ CCPG Gold Medal Award: CCPG is develop-ing criteria for selection of an outstandinggeoscientist to receive a Gold Medal Award.In addition to the selection criteria and struc-ture of the awards committee, CCPG is look-ing for an appropriate venue at which topresent this award.

■ CGC Career Brochure: CCPG is supportingan initiative by the Canadian Geoscience

Council (CGC) to develop careers informationfor geoscientists. Most of the information islikely to be placed on a website with a con-densed version printed as an 81/2 by 11 inchfolded brochure. A CGC census will help todefine career paths for geoscientists. A censusby CCPE is currently underway and will survey 160, 000 licensed engineers and geoscientists

■ National Geoscience Week: A proposal to ini-tiate a National Geoscience Week was notsupported as it was felt that such an undertak-ing was beyond the scope of CCPG and wouldnot be feasible.

■ Restructuring of CCPG: The undertakings ofCCPG are beyond the ability of CCPG execu-tive to undertake alone. To relieve the burdenon CCPG executive, many of the duties of theexecutive will devolved to geoscientists with

CCPG director’s assigned responsibilities tolead or direct committees and ad hoc taskforces.

■ Loss of Revenue for CCPG: Similar toCCPE, CCPG has lost considerable revenuethat was generated by reviewing foreign cre-dentials for HRDC. CCPG currently has theability to absorb this loss for fiscal year 2002but without additional revenue in 2003 CCPGwill be unable to undertake many of the tasksit currently handles. A number of the CAsindicated that they would consider ways tooffset these losses (paying all of certain travelexpenses etc.) but require a request fromCCPG to take to their councils.

Further information, including links to allmember associations of CCPG, is available on theCCPG web site at www.ccpg.ca. ■

Manitoba CCPG Director’s ReportContinued from page 8

The process for evaluating the academic cre-dentials of geoscientist applicants has been clari-fied and finalized. The Geoscientist Issues TaskForce, which had a concern that Canadian geo-science graduates were being treated differentlyfrom Canadian engineering graduates (and theyare, because there is no accreditation of and there-fore no standard among geoscience programs),will be pleased to learn that Canadian geosciencegraduates will be subjected to a lower assessmentfee than applicants with geoscience degrees fromoutside Canada.

And while we’re on the subject of geoscien-tists, the “grandparenting” of the academic quali-fications of graduates of the Honours Geologyprogram at the University of Manitoba and theFour-Year Specialist program at the University ofBrandon continues until December 31, 2002.After that date, all geoscience applicants not reg-istered elsewhere will be required to apply for theassessment of their academic credentials.

The debate over the Association’s treatment ofgeoscience relative to engineering applicantsunder the Mobility Agreements continues, Iunderstand, at the Council level. MostAssociations are using the “nothwithstanding”clause in the geoscience agreement to require theProfessional Practice Examination of those appli-cants who were not required during “grandparent-ing” by their home Associations to write it. OurCouncil appears reluctant to do so.

Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002, thisAssociation received 360 applications. Of these,67 were referred initially to the Academic ReviewCommittee for the assessment of the applicants’academic credentials, and the remainder wentdirectly to the Registration Committee. TheRegistration Committee registered six profes-sional geoscientists under the “transfer” provisionof the “grandparenting” criteria, enrolled or re-enrolled 143 Engineers-in-Training (EITs),enrolled three Geoscientists-in-Training (GITs),registered 101 engineers under the Inter-Association Mobility Agreement, reinstated 18engineers, registered 63 EITs as professionalengineers, registered one GIT as a professional

geoscientist, and issued 22 temporary licences topractise engineering in Manitoba to non-residentCanadian and U.S.Engineers.

As we reached the end of the fiscal year, westill had not commenced with the updating of theoperations manuals for the Experience ReviewCommittee, or the development of an operationsmanual for the Registration Committee.Hopefully, this coming year…!

We are extremely fortunate in having anexcellent Admissions staff at APEGM. LorraineDupas, our Admissions Co-ordinator, does anoutstanding job with the Member-in-Training andExperience Review aspects of admissions; JennReykdal, our Registration Co-ordinator, expertlymanages the applications for registration, enroll-ment, licensure, and Certificates of Authorization;and Joan McKinley, our Administrative Officer,continues to provide excellent service to ourAcademic Review Committee and examinationcandidates. Thank you all, ladies, for your dedica-tion, hard work, and professionalism. ■

Director of Admissions’ ReportContinued from page 10

After four years as APEGM’s Managerof Administration, Ken Buhr, P.Eng., hasretired from the workforce. Good luckand best wishes, Ken and Lou-Anne, inthe next chapter of your lives.

14 SEPTEMBER 2002THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

T he purpose of the Legislation Committee isto propose changes to The Engineering andGeoscientific Professions Act, the By-laws

and Code of Ethics for purpose, consistency andclarity. The Committee also reviews other legisla-tion that may affect the practice of engineering inthe Province of Manitoba. The Committee isresponsible to Council through the IssuesAwareness Board.

Over the past year the Legislation Committeehas not been involved, as it has been in the lastfew years, with high-profile issues such as theadoption of Certificate of Authorization (C of A)By-Laws or major Act changes. However, theCommittee has been busy reviewing the Act andBy-Laws to address a number of lesser but stillimportant on-going issues.

The Act’s initial requirements for professionalliability insurance coverage, required by the C ofA, has been amended recently by the Legislature.The amended Act now allows for more flexibleand appropriate insurance coverage for entitiesthat are not eligible for traditional professionalliability coverage.

The Committee has also reviewed the By-lawswith respect to Council’s adoption of PolicyGovernance. Amendments for this and a numberof other issues will be presented for considerationat this year’s AGM. Some of the By-Law amend-ments to be considered include:

■ simplified requirements for signing of docu-ments in regards to C of A

■ enhancing of deferred-dues options

■ eliminating the requirements for writing theProfessional Practice Exam by some re-regis-trants, depending on special circumstances

■ numerous house-keeping issues

I would like to thank all LegislationCommittee members, both existing and past, aswell as Dave Ennis and other APEGM staff fortheir contributions and efforts over the last year.

I would also like to extend a personal thanksto Jim Hicks who has “retired” from theCommittee after 25 years! Your expertise hasbeen greatly appreciated over the years!

I hope as many members as possible continueto review our By-Law proposals and vote as theywish at the AGM and/or through the mail-in vot-ing process! ■

Legislation Committee D.N. Spangelo, Chair

MembersW.M. BurbidgeD.G. FordR.M. GordonJ.S. Hicks R.A. Johnson S.A. MaileyJ.E. Reimer P.V. Remillard L.R. Ferchoff (LiaisonCouncillor)

T he purpose of the Emerging IssuesCommittee is to facilitate awareness withinthe Council through the Issues Awareness

Board of emerging issues germane to the prac-tices of engineering and geoscience or that couldimpact the mandate of the Association.

The Committee reports to Council throughthe Issues Awareness Board. The Committee meteight times during the past year.

We have investigated a number of topics fordetailed consideration. Through brainstormingsessions, we have identified a number of candi-date topics and have undertaken a rational strat-egy for prioritizing the topics through the use of adecision matrix. Six priority topics have beenidentified, as follows.■ Genetic engineering – is it?■ Under-Investment in Infrastructure■ Biosolids processing■ Improving health care through technology

and innovation■ Technology to reduce greenhouse gases■ Electronic Seal

For some of the issues (notably, the issue ofthe use of the electronic seal), the Committee hasbeen compiling extensive background informa-tion. We have also made a report to APEGMCouncil relating to the technology of hydrogenfuel cells.

I would like to thank the Committee membersfor their enthusiasm and their valued and variedcontributions to the work of the Committee dur-ing the past year. Also, on behalf of theCommittee, I would like to extend sincere thanksto Dave Ennis and other APEGM staff for alltheir support during the year. ■

Emerging IssuesCommittee D.R. Strang, Chair

MembersI.T. BlakelyA.S. ChadhaR.J. HamlinR. LudwickM. ParyniukE.A. SpeersJ.B. ThorsteinssonJ.R. Gunning, (Recording secretary)

T o satisfy our objective of providing salaryinformation for use by the public andAssociation members, the Salary Research

Committee conducted its annual employee salarysurvey this spring. The results are posted at theAPEGM Web site at www.apegm.mb.ca.

This year it was decided that we would notcontinue with our annual employer survey. Thepast few years had seen a decline in participationof employers and the employer response receivedwas no longer representative of the engineeringemployment in the province. In addition, employ-ers who had responded have continued to experi-ence difficulty in relating their own individual job

evaluation process to the standard job classifica-tion system used by APEGM and the otherEngineering Associations.

Last year we had adopted the job classifica-tion guideline of the Association of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan.The new guideline maintained the same pointsystem but uses generic wording and includes jobreferences for both engineer and geoscientistwork activity. This year we had modified thequestionnaire to reflect work roles of both engi-neers and geoscientists. This has enabled us tocomplete analysis by industry sector and jobfunction separately.

For the employee survey, we once againreceived an excellent response with completedsurveys received from 25% of the members. Themembers reported an average increase of 4.6% inbase salary for the year ending December 31,2001. The base salary increase in the public sec-tor was 4.5% while the base salary increase in theprivate sector was 4.7% this year. This comparesto the average base salary increase of 5.1%reported for the year ending December 31, 2000.

Thank you to the members who completedour survey and to those who provided their com-ments. Finally, many thanks to the committeemembers for their efforts this year and to DaveEnnis and Joan McKinley for their continued support. ■

Salary ResearchCommittee E.G. Parker, Chair

MembersW. CzyrnyjJ.W.P. LengyelA.M. MianI. Mikawoz S. QuigleyW.B. ToddStatistical Analysis: Jean-Louis Gratton

I have to write to express my delight inreading the June, 2002, “Thoughts onDesign” article by Ron Britton, P.Eng.

Ron has described in simple and effectiveterms a distinction that is important for us allto understand. Well done Ron.

M.J. Ferguson, P.Eng.

Letter to the Editor

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 15

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

T he primary responsibility of the RegistrationCommittee is to register members of theAssociation. This duty is carried out within

the policies of Council as laid down in theAssociation’s Manual of Admissions. TheCommittee reviews the credentials of candidatesand relies on recommendations from theAcademic Review Committee, the ExperienceReview Committee, and Association staff in mak-ing decisions.

Additional responsibilities of the Committeeinclude the consideration of appeals against deci-sions of the other Committees and the staff, andthe review of registration-related issues and provi-sion of recommendations respecting the same tothe Admissions Board, the Executive Director,and the Council.

The Registration Committee was, once again,very busy during 2001-2002. In this period, theCommittee held 12 regular meetings and fourspecial meetings and heard two appeals. Insofaras statistics are concerned, during this past year:

146 EITs/GITs were enrolled, 101 members wereregistered under the Mobility Agreement, sixmembers (geoscientists) were registered by trans-fer (one of these was a dual registration), 64members (including one geoscientist) were regis-tered for the first time, 22 temporary licenceswere issued for practice, 18 reinstatements wereapproved, two reversions (from retired member-ship) were approved, and 26 Academic ReviewCommittee recommendations were verified.Three applications were reviewed and notapproved by the Committee for a variety of rea-sons.

One of the two appeals heard related to a deci-sion of the Registration Committee. Based onnew information submitted, the appeal wasgranted. The second appeal heard was against adecision of the Experience Review Committee.The appeal was granted with conditions to be metby the appellant. In addition, the Council heardone appeal against a decision of the RegistrationCommittee respecting an appeal against anExperience Review Committee decision. TheCouncil denied the appeal.

During the past year, the Committee has con-tinued to work closely with the AdmissionsBoard, the Academic Review Committee, theExperience Review Committee, the staff, and theCouncil to ensure that registration procedures areappropriate. Where necessary, recommendationshave been made to the Admissions Board, theExecutive Director or the Council respecting pro-posed changes to the Manual of Admissionsand/or the Committee Terms of Reference. It isintended that an Operations Manual be developedto assist the Committee in the carrying out of itsduties.

In addition to its baseline work, theRegistration Committee also reviewed and maderecommendations respecting several registration-related issues. Four Special Meetings of theRegistration Committee have been held to discussissues related to the transfer of geoscientists intothe Association, Temporary Licensure of appli-cants, and the reinstatement of former membersback into the Association. The transfer issue wasdealt with by a change to the Manual ofAdmissions while the other two items are stillunder discussion. While these three issues havetaken a lot of time, the Committee also reviewedand made recommendations respecting the citi-zenship/legal-right-to-work issue and will bedealing with the “Report of the AdmissionsPolicy Review Committee” of the Council andrecommendations prepared by the ExecutiveDirector in response to the Report. Various othermiscellaneous tasks were also undertaken.

The Committee membership has changed overthe past year. Carey Galeschuk and Doug Brownwere new additions to the Committee at thebeginning of the period. Carol Roberts was wel-comed back to the Committee after an absencefor educational reasons. Unfortunately, CareyGaleschuk had to resign from the Committee forpersonal reasons at the end of the period and hasbeen replaced by Don Dudek as the geoscientistrepresentative. Thanks for your hard work, Carey,and welcome, Don. The Chair has appreciated theongoing enthusiasm and dedication of all theCommittee members over the past year. TheCommittee wishes to recognize and thank ShirleyMatile, P.Eng., Jennifer Reykdal, and Dave Ennis,P.Eng., for their ongoing support and assistancewhich has, once again, proven to be invaluable. ■

Registration Committee K.J.T. Kjartanson, Chair

MembersD.G. Osman, (Vice-Chair)D.A. BrownD.P. DudekC.R. GaleschukT.W. GouldsboroughC.S. RobertsA.H. Permut, (LiaisonCouncillor)T. Sellen, (Lay Member)

T he Awards Committee is responsible forproviding recommendations to Council forrecipients of APEGM Awards and for nomi-

nees for the CCPE Awards.

The Association of Professional Engineersand Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba’s(APEGM) Annual General Meeting AwardsDinner was held on Saturday, 13 October, 2001.At that event, two Life Memberships and oneOutstanding Service Award were presented. TheLife Memberships went to Easton Lexier andGlen Morris, and the Service Award went to RonBritton.

An Evening of Recognition was held on 5March 2002. There were four awards presented atthis event. The first was the Merit Award to RonBritton from the University of Manitoba for hisoutstanding scholarly achievements, including thedirect advancement of the profession of engineer-ing in Manitoba. The Leadership Award was pre-sented to Madhav Sinha for his pioneeringcontributions in the development of quality con-trol science and engineering disciplines, andrelated educational and promotional activities.The Early Achievement Award was given toRoger Rempel for significant contributions as anenvironmental consultant to society and the engi-neering profession. The final award was theCertificate of Engineering Achievement whichwent to the City of Winnipeg Water and WasteDepartment, CH2M Hill Canada Limited, andUMA Engineering Limited for the“Rehabilitation of the Greater Winnipeg WaterDistrict’s Shoal Lake Aqueduct”.

This year we were particularly fortunate tohave two successful Manitoba submissions for theCCPE Awards. Bill McDonald received theMeritorious Award for Community Service andJim Graham won the Medal for Distinction inEngineering Education.

The above recipients are very deserving of

their awards for their considerable contribution toManitoba society and the APEGM. The public’simage of the engineers of Manitoba and Canadahas been greatly enhanced by these individuals.

The Association will continue to recognizeoutstanding contributions to the profession andcommunity later this year in conjunction with the2002 Annual General Meeting. While the recipi-ents have been named, they have not gonethrough the entire review process and, therefore, itwould be premature to announce the winners.

The Awards Committee continues to have avery good slate of candidates for these awards butwe are always looking for nominations from themembership. We are looking for your input to thisprocess to ensure all deserving candidates aregiven consideration. Please contribute to the pro-cess by nominating a fellow professional or non-professional for any of the appropriate awards theAPEGM or CCPE has to recognize the effortsand achievements of its members. It is importantthe membership continue to contribute to the pro-cess.

I would like to thank Joan McKinley, DaveEnnis, and all the Awards Committee membersfor their significant efforts over the last year. Ithas been a pleasure working with you. ■

Awards CommitteeJ.M. Symonds, Chair

MembersI. DjatiutomoJ.R.C. DoeringJ. GrahamD.H. GrantB.W. GulayE.E. LachL.S.W. LarkinG.A. MorrisJ.R. PickellN.B. UlyattP. Washchyshyn

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 200216

T he Academic Review Committee (ARC)assesses the academic qualifications of allapplicants for registration who have not

graduated with Bachelor’s Degrees from engi-neering programs accredited by the CanadianEngineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) or geo-science programs recognized by APEGM. One ormore exams may be assigned such that everyoneregistered as a Professional Engineer or aProfessional Geoscientist with the Associationhas a minimum level of academic qualificationequivalent to that obtained by graduates ofCEAB-accredited programs (for engineeringapplicants) or to a comprehensive four-yearHonours or Specialist geoscience program (for

geoscience applicants).

Each applicant’s degree(s), transcript(s), syl-labi and other submitted information are assessedby a sub-Committee and the number and subjectmatter of examinations to be taken, if any, recom-mended to ARC for discussion and approval. Forengineering applicants, the examinations areselected from 17 syllabi prepared by the CanadianEngineering Qualifications Board (CEQB),another committee of the CCPE. Joan McKinley,the Secretary to the ARC, arranges for the prepa-ration of the examination papers and organizesthe examination sessions. The ARC monitors theprogress of candidates who have been assignedexaminations, evaluates their performance onthese examinations, and assigns additional exami-nations, if necessary, until the committee is satis-fied that the applicant is academically qualifiedfor registration. The ARC also establishes thedate of academic qualification, which impacts onthe acceptability of some of the work experienceof the applicants.

During the year, 15 applicants completed theirassigned examinations and were then consideredacademically qualified.

In the past year the ARC assessed 67 appli-cants (64 engineering applicants and three geo-science applicants) and assigned a total of 214examinations. The committee also considered 13appeals on various grounds.

This year, under the leadership of DougChapman, P.Eng., the Procedures Manual forARC has undergone a complete re-write. The

major impact will be to align the treatment ofcandidates, notably the number of examinationsassigned (if required), with the new CCPEGuideline on Admission to the Practice ofEngineering in Canada. The new manual alsoincorporates procedures for the academic evalua-tion of applicants for licensing as ProfessionalGeoscientists.

The evaluation of academic credentials is achallenging task. It is not simply formulaic, other-wise the work could be carried out by a computer.Judgement is also involved, and recommenda-tions are scrutinized thoroughly by other mem-bers of the Committee during meetings. I wish,therefore, to express my gratitude to ARC mem-bers for their conscientious work. In addition,none of us would have been able to carry out ourassignments without the dedication and advice ofDavid Ennis, P.Eng., Executive Director andRegistrar, Shirley Matile, P.Eng., Director ofAdmissions, and Joan McKinley, AdministrativeOfficer, who handled the large amount of admin-istrative work of the committee and of the exami-nation process. ■

Academic ReviewCommitteeB. Stimpson, Chair

MembersK.M. AdamS. BalakrishnanE. BridgesD.G. Chapman N ChowI. FergusonD.S. JayasW.M. KinsnerR.J. PartridgeD.PolyzoisR.W. MenziesH.M.H. Soliman

A s we proceed into the second year of theGeoscience Issues Task Force (GITF) wecontinue to deal with issues that relate to

the geoscience community and professional regis-tration. We have remained as a source of informa-tion and feedback to the administration ofProfessional Geoscience registration withinAPEGM.

The GITF members represent a broad cross-section of the geoscience community acrossManitoba. The task force continues to welcomesfeedback from all individuals. GITF has adoptedthe following objective as its mandate and pur-pose:

“To facilitate awareness of geoscience issues and

to promote communication between professionalgeoscientists, professional engineers, relatedgroups and the general public.”

An open forum was held at the ManitobaMines and Minerals Convention in 2001 andanother will be planned for November 2002.From this open forum, several matters pertainingto the Certificate of Authorization, insurance,assessment, professional registration, and use ofthe seal were addressed. These issues wereanswered and posted in The KeystoneProfessional.

GITF has been part of the consultation pro-cess into the formation of the Environmental TaskForce, education standards, administration, andmobility. One of the most explored issues of theyear was the ability of geoscience students regis-tering with APEGM to become GIT’s. There aresome hurdles to overcome in this regard, but weare confident that a viable solution will arise. Anynew venture or process is one of evolution andnot quick change, consequently we must learn tobe patient.

I would like to thank all the Geoscience IssuesTask Force members and all who have beeninvolved in the process of registering ProfessionalGeoscientists. A special thanks is extended toDave Ennis for his constant support ofGeoscience registration.

We look forward to another successful yearand to serving our role within APEGM. ■

Geoscience Issues Task ForceC.R. Galeschuk, Chair

MembersA. AubutK. CostelloJ. HaylesR.A.S. ReicheltK. TaitG. YoungD.V. Ziehlke

T his report will conclude my three-year stintas Chair of the CommunicationsCommittee. I think it’s time to pass the

torch to new, eager hands. James Blatz will betaking over the position and I ask all of you togive him your full support and co-operation.

This year has seen the normal turnover ofCommunications Committee members.Fortunately for us, there are always more ambi-tious, capable people to take their places. One ofthe gratifying things about this position is to seehow often our newer members come up withgood ideas and better ways of doing things.

I think we had a good year and that we allenjoyed putting together The KeystoneProfessional. With the exception of someinternecine warfare about our biennial humoritem and right-justification, things went verysmoothly. And we must not forget the tirelesswork of Lorraine Dupas who is always there totake minutes and co-ordinate the writing, editing,and formatting of The Keystone Professional.Thanks to Lorraine and the Committee for theirtime and effort. ■

CommunicationsCommittee A.N. Kempan, Chair

MembersM. BarilJ.A. BlatzV.L. DuttonD.H. InglisJ.W.P. LengyelA. A. PoulinS.B. Williamson

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 17

T he purpose of the Sports and SocialCommittee is to organize and conductsporting and social events as venues for

member interaction and networking. TheCommittee helps to promote pride in, and a senseof belonging to, the profession. This past year theCommittee organized the following activities:

■ Annual fall golf tournament at KingswoodGolf & Country Club on September 13, 2001.Unfortunately the tournament was cancelleddue to lack of interest.

■ Annual spring golf tournament at BridgesGolf Course on June 11, 2002, using a TexasScramble format. Thank you to all the partici-pants and the organizations that sponsoredholes and donated prizes. Your continued sup-port is greatly appreciated. The spring tourna-ment was once again a huge success.

The annual fall golf tournament for 2002 wasnot organized due to last year’s lack of interest,and the smaller than normal turnout at the 2000fall tournament. We will be reviewing the falltournament at upcoming meetings this next year,in addition to the possibility of reviving the curl-ing bonspiel. The venue for the 2003 spring tour-nament has yet to be finalized, but it will onceagain be scheduled for the 2nd or 3rd week ofJune. Please feel free to contact any member ofthe Committee to voice comments/concernsabout the current activities, or to discuss possiblenew activities. Contact with the Committee canbe arranged through the APEGM office.

The Committee would like to thank CraigPerrett, P.Eng., for his numerous years on theCommittee. Craig retired from the Committeethis past year. We are currently looking for a cou-ple of new members who can attend four or fivelunch meetings per year. Anyone interested injoining our Committee can forward their name tothe APEGM office.

The Chair would like to thank all theCommittee members, as well as the staff of theAPEGM office, who are inevitably forced to aidthe committee in some capacity each year. ■

Sports and SocialCommittee Report M.E. Baril, Chair

MembersC.J. Berkis, (Vice Chair)B.R. Coreau, (Scribe)J.F. LavergneM.C. Rowbotham

T he Practice Standards Committee has mettwice over the past year to develop PracticeStandards in the following areas:

New Standards:

■ Professional Practice Guidelines

■ Guidelines for the Development of Mechan-ical and Electrical Systems in Buildings

■ General Review of Construction

■ Guideline on Commissioning

■ Guideline on Duty to Report

■ Guidelines for Technical Review of Engineer-ing and Geoscientific Work of Others

Updates to Current Standards:

■ Guide to the Engagement of the ConsultingProfessional Engineer

■ Guide to the Ethical Use of the Seal

In order to ensure that all members of ourAssociation had an opportunity to review the doc-uments before they were finalized and formed thebasis of good practice in Manitoba, the PracticeStandards Committee has made several docu-ments available for comment. The availability ofThe Guideline on Commissioning was announcedin the February edition of Keystone Professionaland an invitation to review the Duty to ReportGuideline was announced in the April Edition.

In the near future two more guidelines will beavailable for comment; Guidelines for theDevelopment of Mechanical and ElectricalSystems in Buildings and Guidelines forTechnical Review of Engineering andGeoscientific Work of Others. As others are com-pleted, they will be presented to the membershipfor review.

A special joint committee of APEGM and theCEM is developing the Guideline for theEngagement of the Consulting ProfessionalEngineer. Included will be guidelines covering theselection and engagement of engineers and a sug-gested fee structure. It is expected that the draftdocument will be ready for review by the mem-bership later this year. ■

I would like to thank the members of theCommittee for their support. Furthermore, the aidprovided by Dave Ennis and the APEGM staffhas made the work of the Committee much moreeffective and is appreciated.

Practice StandardsCommitteeF.L. Nicholson, Chair

MembersM.S. AndersonK.G. BoltonA.G. DegnerI.R. DewarE. FerbersM.J. FryeJ.G. HaylesE.I. LexierR.N. McPhailD.G. MulderR.H. PayneB.J. RossenT.L. StrattonJ.A. ThomsonD.I. WaldmanE. Weiszmann

O ver the period from September 2001 toJuly 2002, the Committee has met fivetimes.

During this time it has arranged and facili-tated:

■ the 2001 Annual General Meeting andProfessional Development Conference onOctober 12 and 13, 2001;

■ a reception for the presentation of Awards andCertificates of Registration to new memberson March 5, 2002, during NationalEngineering Week.

■ made arrangements for the 2002 AnnualGeneral Meeting.

The Committee is very appreciative of thework of the Task Force chaired by Joe Begin,which arranged the professional developmentsessions held on October 12th. Nearly 100 peopleattended the sessions and the feedback waspositive. This year’s Task Force, now chaired byKen Buhr, and comprised of Hilmi Turanli, BobBruce, Tim Corkery, Ganpat Lohda, NinelGonzales, Paul Newsham and Ramesh Gupta arearranging another session for October 18th, 2002as part of this year’s Annual Meeting.

The 2002 Annual General Meeting will beheld at the Fort Garry Hotel on BroadwayAvenue in Winnipeg on October 18, 2001. Thisyear, as in prior years, members from theChapters at Thompson and Flin Flon/The Pas(Kelsey) will be connected to the businessmeeting through video-conference facilities. Theconference program is available through theAGM web page. The speaker at the AnnualMeeting luncheon on October 18th will be Dr.Henry Petroski, Professor of Civil Engineeringand Professor of History at Duke University. Heis the author of nine books, one being “ToEngineer Is Human: The Role of Failure inSuccessful Design”.

The Committee appreciates andacknowledges the contributions of JoanMcKinley and Ken Buhr to its operations. ■

Meetings CommitteeD.A. Ennis, Chair

MembersM.T. CorkeryM.J. CoyneS. KassR.R. McKibbinK.J. PuckallH. YogendranD.P. Zilinski

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

T he ESDC held five meetings in the current2001/2002 term. Some of the issues exam-ined by the ESDC during this term were as

follows:

The Investigation Committee is involved in theinvestigation of complaints and concerns receivedfrom both the public and members of the Asso-ciation, as well as to consider questions on profes-sional conduct received from Associationmembers. The actions of the Committee are con-ducted under the authority of Part 9 of TheEngineering and Geoscientific Professions Actand are supplemented by the Association’s By-Law 15 and the Code of Ethics for the Practice of

Professional Engineering & ProfessionalGeoscience.

Over the last year the Committee held ninemeetings. In addition, numerous sub-committeemeetings were held to review the various com-plaints, concerns and questions received. A totalof 26 files were reviewed, of which 19 were car-ried over from the previous year, six were newcomplaints and concerns, and one was a questionof professional conduct received from a fewmembers employed by a municipal authority.

Of these files, 11 are ongoing and 12 were dis-missed. Of those that were dismissed, three wereappealed to the Council under Section 36(1) ofthe Act.

The ongoing files included one that returnedto the Committee following a member’s success-ful appeal to the Manitoba Court of Appeal of adecision of the Discipline Committee. The Courthad noted that its decision had not precluded re-prosecution.

The complaints that were not dismissed weredealt with under Section 35(1) of the Act whichprovides that with the written consent of theinvestigated person, the Committee can formulatea charge, register a conviction and impose anypenalty that the Discipline Committee could haveimposed. Under that process, one reprimand wasissued and the member was assessed the out-of-pocket costs of the investigation. The Committeecompleted the monitoring of the inspection of onemember’s professional practice for one year, atthe member’s expense, a process that had beenagreed to and commenced during the previous

year. No complaints were referred to theDiscipline Committee.

A Practice Note was drafted by the Committeein response to the question relating to appropriateprofessional conduct received from the membersemployed by a municipal authority.

Of the complaints/questions considered:

■ 12 resulted from situations where an engineerwas concerned with the practice or conduct ofanother member;

■ 13 resulted from concerns of various agenciesand individuals on the conduct of engineers,including four which involved design and/orinspection of both single and multiple familyresidential properties;

■ one was a question relating to professionalconduct.

The Committee is continuing to explore theindependent mediation process provided forthrough the 2001 By-law change. The thoughtbeing that in some cases this process might bemore expedient than a formal investigation, espe-cially in the case of complaints arising from dis-putes between members.

The Committee is also reviewing guidelinesfor use when it is deemed that a member’s profes-sional practice should be subject to inspection.

Heather Milne tendered her resignation in thefall of 2001. The Committee thanks Ms Milne forher dedicated service as a non-member represen-tative on the Committee, and welcomes Mary-Ann Gibson who began service on the Committeeearly in 2002. The Committee also thanks JackMcDougall, a former non-member representativeof the Committee who returned to serve pro temfollowing Ms Milne’s resignation.

Support staff, as in the past, has providedenthusiastic and dedicated service in numerousfiles before, during and after normal workinghours. The assistance of Dave Ennis, LorraineDupas, and Charlie Bouskill allowed the Commit-tee to function in an effective, efficient manner. ■

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 200218

T he ESDC held five meetings in the current2001/2002 term. Some of the issues exam-ined by the ESDC during this term were as

follows:

■ Specialist Certification in contaminated siteinvestigations was reviewed given the require-ments in other jurisdictions (British Columbiaand Ontario). At this time, there does notappear to be any intent by the provincial gov-ernment to require such certification inManitoba.

■ The declaration of road salt as “toxic” underthe federal Canadian EnvironmentalProtection Act was reviewed.

■ Initial discussions were held onSaskatchewan’s Environmental Guidelines forProfessional Engineers and Geoscientists andwhether Manitoba would benefit from a simi-lar guideline.

Activities undertaken by members of theESDC included:

■ C. Anderson attended two workshops held byManitoba Conservation on potential amend-ments to the Manitoba Environment Act.

■ K. Buhr attended the Manitoba Conservationworkshop on Manitoba’s Strategic Plan forwater.

■ G. Rempel continued as a member of theCanadian Council of Professional Engineers(CCPE) Environment Committee, regularlyreported to the ESDC on the CCPEEnvironment Committee activities, and pro-vided feedback to the CCPE EnvironmentCommittee from the ESDC.

The role of the ESDC is to monitor environ-mental and sustainable development issues andreport to the Issues Awareness Board andAPEGM membership, as appropriate. Commentsand issues from the APEGM membership arealways welcome. ■

Environment andSustainableDevelopmentCommittee (ESDC)J. Van Dusen, Chair

MembersC.E. AndersonK.A. BuhrJ.D. Ewing (Vice Chair)P. JanzenR.M. LemoineD.M. McCartneyD.G. OsmanG. Rempel

Investigation CommitteeI. H. McKay, Chair

MembersA. E. BallM. G. BrittonD. E. CrossM. B. Gibson, (Non-member Representative)T. H. GillmanD. G. HodgkinsonR. P. HoemsenS. I. KulbaskiE. I. LexierW. M. A. McDonaldJ. B. SmithR. C. SomervilleJ. A. TerrisS. L. Ursel

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

T he Practice Standards Committee hastwo guidelines available for commentprior to their publication. They are

entitled:

■ Technical Review of the Work of OtherMembers; and

■ Provision of Mechanical and ElectricalEngineering Services for Buildings.

Members who wish to review themand/or comment are asked to contact theAssociation office (preferably by email,apegm@apegm.mb.ca) for a copy.Comments will be received up until October31, 2002. ■

PracticeGuidelines

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 19

T here were no cases referred to the DisciplineCommittee this year. All complaints wereheard and dealt with by the Investigation

Committee under section 35(1) of the Act or, inthe case of an appeal, by the Council under sec-tion 36(1) of the Act.

The Discipline Committee was, however,asked by the Investigation Committee to providea member to review a penalty that was proposedfor one investigated member under section35(1)(f) of the Act.

When a charge of unskilled practice or profes-sional misconduct is brought forward by theInvestigation Committee to the DisciplineCommittee, a panel made up of Committee mem-bers hears the case. It operates much in the man-ner of a court of law including having certaincourt powers such as the right to subpoena wit-nesses and documents. The case is presented bythe Investigation Committee and its legal counseland is defended by the accused member and hisor her legal counsel Decisions and ordersimposed by the panel may be appeal to theCouncil.

Our profession continues to be self-governedunder The Engineering and GeoscientificProfessions Act. This legislated privilege is well-guarded by the Council and its committees, theadministration. and the members at large. ■

Discipline CommitteeR.E. Scouten, Chair

MembersG.L. GreasleyR.A. KaneD.M. KilgourB.R. KingA.M. LohseJ. LyonsP.J. MignaccaG.A. MorrisD.G. OsmanD.N. Spangelo

T he Women’s Action Committee was pleasedto welcome several new members over thepast year: Colleen Flather, Roberta Dyck,

Paula Kreitz, Jennifer St. Laurent, and LisaLazareck. We are grateful for their contributionsand welcome their fresh perspectives. RobinHutchinson left the committee in the spring of2002 – thanks, Robin, for your help during yourterm with the Committee.

Our main initiative over the past year was there-establishment of networking meetings aimedprimarily at the female membership of theAssociation (although these meetings are open toALL members). In March, we were pleased tohave Dr. Elizabeth Cannon present some of thefindings from her research during her term as theNSERC/Petro-Canada Chair for Women inScience and Engineering. Dr. Cannon’s NSERCChair position came to an end in June and welook forward to the appointment of a new Chairfor another five-year term. In June, ColleenFlather gave us an excellent overview of theWISE Access Program at the University ofManitoba, the largest science outreach program inManitoba. (Article on page 3.) Colleen is theDirector of this program which operates out ofthe U of M. Our plan is to continue with theseevents three times per year (likely September,

January, and April) so watch the APEGM websitefor details. If you’d like to make a presentation orhave any ideas for our networking events, pleasecontact any of the Committee members via theAPEGM office.

Our plan for the coming year is to investigatethe possibility of establishing a local mentoringprogram. The U of M has been participating inMentorNet free of charge for the past two years,however, the grace period expires this fall and thecost will be quite substantial to continue with thisprogram. The MentorNet program is extensive,involving over 120 colleges/universities (mainlyU.S.), some (U.S.) corporations, and (U.S) gov-ernment departments. The Committee feels thatan e-mail mentoring program would be worth-while in Manitoba, and will be looking for leader-ship from other organizations (e.g. CCPE) or atthe possibility of partnering with an establishedprogram for this initiative.

The Committee continues to maintain a posi-tion as a Board member of CCWEST (CanadianCoalition of Women in Engineering, Science, andTechnology) – this is one of the avenues that weuse to keep informed of activities at the nationallevel. The CCPE Women in EngineeringCommittee (WIEC) has been busy during the pastyear working on many of the initiatives identifiedin the Women in Engineering policy implementa-tion plan. The CCPE held 10 focus groups in fiveCanadian cities (unfortunately, Winnipeg was notone of them) early in the year to identify signifi-cant issues for women in engineering. Network-ing, mentoring, and flexible work options wereidentified as three areas among those discussed atthe focus groups where improvements mayenhance the careers of women engineers. So,hopefully, we’re on the right track with our activi-ties in these areas.

Thanks to all committee members for theireffort and contribution over the past year as well as to the APEGM staff for their involvementin the activities of the Women’s ActionCommittee. ■

Women’s ActionCommitteeB.A.K. Danielson, Chair

MembersR. DyckC. Flather C. GeddertP. KreitzL. LazareckL. McFarlaneM. O’LaughlinJ. St.LaurentE. Swatek

T he Experience Review Committee (ERC)had another interesting year. Along with theregular work we do reviewing progress

reports from Members-in-Training (MITs) andtheir supervisors (a total of 805 files werereviewed between July, 2001 and June, 2002), theCommittee was hard at work looking at the Pre-Registration Program and trying to make it evenbetter. The main challenge was to ensure thatMITs commit to the mandatory enrollmentrequirement of the program; specifically, how toreward those who take this commitment seriously,and how to deal with MITs who don’t. The pro-gram is at a crossroads, and the ERC, along withCouncil and Administration, will resolve thisissue over the next few months.

In the last year, the ERC made two notablechanges to the program. The first is the allowanceof up to 12 months of pre-enrollment experience(see the December 2001 Keystone Professionalfor details). The other change has been to acceptthe recommendation of the MIT SubCommitteeto allow volunteer work other than engineering-related activity to count towards the professionalservice requirement (also detailed in the

December, 2001 issue of the Keystone).

The Experience Review Committee has alsoseen a large change in membership. Five mem-bers resigned this year, having devoted a remark-able total of 31 years of volunteer service to thecommittee. Many thanks to Don Anderson, P.Eng.,Michael DeWiele, P.Eng., Allan Silk, P.Eng.,Peter Stanus, P.Eng. and Chris Torpey, P.Eng. fortheir tremendous service. The Committee alsogained four new members. Welcome to KevinDickson, P.Eng., Howard Procyshyn, P.Eng.,James Blatz, P.Eng., and Brian Blahey, P.Eng.

The Committee members worked extremelyhard in making all of this happen and I would liketo congratulate them all on a job well done andthank them for their exemplary volunteer effort. Iwould also like to thank Shirley Matile, P.Eng.,Dave Ennis, P.Eng., and Lorraine Dupas for alltheir assistance during the past year. Without theprofessional and committed efforts of all theseindividuals, the Committee would not have beenable to achieve the results it did. ■

Experience ReviewCommitteeJ.D.G. McInnis, Chair

MembersJ.B.P. BlaheyJ.A. BlatzC.R. BouskillK.A. DicksonD.S. JayasI.J. MontufarH.N. ProcyshynR.A.S. Reichelt, (Vice-Chair)G. SchaubC.L. StewartV.S. Walkes

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 200220

D uring the past year the PD Committee hascontinued its traditional seminar series,most one hour sessions to introduce or

update members on a wide variety of technical,business and general knowledge topics.

■ Protecting Winnipeg from the Big One,Flood Protection Options for Winnipeg,Larry Whitney, P.Eng., Manager, WaterPlanning and Development Deputy director,Water Resources, MB

■ Genetic Engineering – Where is theEngineering in it?, Dr. Digvir Jayas, P. Eng.,Associate Vice-President (Research)University of Manitoba.

■ Managing Business Evolution, a full-daymanagement seminar, presented with the assis-tance of Robert Warren of the Asper School ofBusiness at the University of Manitoba.

■ Software Engineering, Dr. W. Kinsner. P.Eng., Professor and Associate Head,Department of Electrical and ComputerEngineering, University of Manitoba.

■ Status of Planning for Future HydroelectricDevelopments in Manitoba, John W.Markowsky, MBA, P. Eng., Manager, MajorProject Planning, Power Supply Business Unit,Manitoba Hydro.

■ Design and Manufacturing ofTransformers, Jim Neilson, P. Eng., Managerof Operations, Pauwels Canada Inc.

■ An Introduction to Micro Machining andNanotechnology, and the Nano-MachiningLaboratory at the University of Manitoba,Dr. Cyrus Shafai, Assistant Professor,Department of Electrical and ComputerEngineering, University of Manitoba.

■ Alternate Energy Power Options in MB,Tom S. Molinski, P.Eng., Supply SideEngineer, Resource planning and MarketAnalysis Department

■ Project Management through the eyes ofthe Project Management Institute, LesHoward. PMP and Ron Amann, PMP

■ Precast – Prestressed ConcreteConstruction, Karl Truderung, P.Eng.Kowalchuck Consulting Engineers Ltd.

■ Video Conferencing – The ManitobaTelehealth Network, Bill Evans of EBSystems Ltd.

■ The Electronic Commerce and InformationAct, Lynne Romeo, General counsel, Civil

Legal Services (SOA), Dept. of Justice.(Repeated by popular demand.)

■ Tour of the Industrial Technology CentreVirtual Reality Centre, Trevor Cornell,P.Eng.

■ Sharpening Your Written CommunicationSkills, two day seminar, Ron Blicq, SeniorConsultant, RGI International, Canada andLisa Moretto, Senior Consultant, RGIInternational, USA

■ Overview of Industry and TechnologyInitiatives, Industry Canada.

■ Represented APEGM at the MBOA seminaron a Continuing Competence panel discussionrelative to certification of building inspectors.

■ Provencher Bridge Site Tour, hosted byWardrop.

September’s schedule is:

■ 16 Sept, 02 – Risk Reliability andVulnerability, Professor David Blockley of theUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, England.

■ 18 Sept, 02 – Construction Surety Bonds,John Madison of Aon Reed Stenhouse.

■ 25 Sept, 02 – Thermal Generation atManitoba Hydro, R. Raban, P. Eng. , DivisionManager, Engineering service Division, PowerSupply, MB Hydro.

Sincere thanks for all staff assistance, and par-ticularly to assigned staff person Ken Buhr, P. Eng.

Seminar suggestions are always welcome.Please refer to the APEGM ProfessionalDevelopment Guideline for assistance in manag-ing your personal PD program. ■

ProfessionalDevelopmentCommitteeD.B. McKibbin, Chair

MembersS. AnandR. J. BruceV. L. DuttonW. T. JacksonG. S. LohdaB. W. PurdyT. S. RumbalD. R. SwatekH. M. Turanli

T he Public Awareness Committee had anotherbusy year which included an initiative toimprove the image and visibility of the

Association in particular and of engineers andgeoscientists in general. This initiative isconsistent with the Committee’s objective toensure support for APEGM’s legislated mandateand to encourage individuals to considerengineering and geoscience as a profession. TheCommittee is responsible for organizing NationalEngineering Week, participating in and

sponsoring similar events organized by otherassociations or interest groups, and placingnewspaper advertisements.

The Committee decided last year to turn overthe responsibility of organizing NationalEngineering Week to a sub-committee, and thatwas accomplished very successfully under thedirection of sub-committee Chair, University ofManitoba Professor Brian Stimpson. The eventwas staged for the second straight year at St. VitalCentre with more displays, more participation,and additional media coverage. Brian’s committeewas able to arrange live television coverage thatincluded interviews with Committee members andparticipation in a “competition” with politiciansand celebrities. The main events included thetraditional Spaghetti Bridge competition andConcrete for Kids.

The Committee has made progress in the pastyear towards establishing a strategic initiative forpromoting the profession. Motivated by theCouncil’s Policy Governance model, the PublicAwareness Committee held a special “brain-storming session” to work towards the APEGMtarget for the committee described as “CommonPublic Understanding and Expectations regardingthe competencies and ethics of Engineers andGeoscientists”. As a result of the session, twosubcommittees were struck to develop one

specific strategy aimed at students and teachersand a second strategy aimed at the businesscommunity.

The Committee is continuing its commitmentto the Manitoba Schools Science Symposium. Amonetary grant is provided to offset the costs ofthe committee and by providing Special awardsfor engineering-related projects. The winningprojects were selected by APEGM members, whoalso volunteered as judges.

In the area of membership, Kristin Morand left the Committee to pursue other interests andshe is to be congratulated for her contributions, inparticular her dedicated efforts at the ManitobaSchools Science Symposium. Michelle Rheault istaking a leave-of-absence from the Committee topursue a Masters degree in BusinessAdministration, and the Committee wishes herwell. Jeff Boyko joined the Committee this pastyear. Personally, I would like to thank MonicaSamuda Poitras for all her efforts in assisting meas the Vice-chair.

The Committee thanks the large number ofAssociation members, both P.Eng. and EIT, whohad a hand in ensuring the success of the Commit-tee’s initiatives during the past year. The Commit-tee also thanks Dave Ennis, Shirley Matile andLorraine Dupas at the Association’s office for theirinvaluable help and support. ■

Public AwarenessCommitteeW. Jackson, Chair

MembersR. BernhardtT. BowdenJ. BoykoS. QureshiR. RempelM. RheaultH. RocheJ. RooneyM. Samuda Poitras, (Vice-Chair)

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 21

T he Kelsey Chapter of APEGM and APEGSis a local representation of the twoprofessional organizations within the area of

The Pas, Flin Flon, Snow Lake, and CreightonSaskatchewan totaling approximately 100members. Members and Lay Associates meetmonthly in Flin Flon, The Pas, or CranberryPortage, with occasional meetings in Snow Lakefor related presentations and discussions. TheChapter continues to thrive despite the distanceand long drives our members endure to attendmeetings. Our members are involved with manydifferent organizations, committees andassociations. Active Kelsey Chapter membersDon Harfield and Kelly Gilmore serve theAPEGM in the capacity of councillors.

In September, the Chapter hosted the annualPresidents’ Visit in Cranberry Portage, with atten-dance by the Executive Directors from bothAPEGM and APEGS as well as the President of

APEGS. The Chapter also took part in a bi-annualcareer symposium sponsored by the local schooldivisions with an information booth at the event.

In October, Chapter members in Flin Flonwere able to take part in the AGM via videocon-ferencing. Once again the arrangements were suc-cessful and greatly appreciated by those inattendance in Flin Flon.

The Nor-Man Regional Health Authority gavea presentation during our November meeting inThe Pas. A host of interesting engineering andhealth issues were discussed regarding long-termplans for the region. An informal meeting washeld in Flin Flon during February, allowingChapter members to discuss various engineering

and geoscience issues. These general discussionsbrought forward many issues for further discus-sion at future meetings and allowed feed-backregarding the direction of the Chapter.

During our April meeting, the Chapter enjoyeda presentation by Ducks Unlimited in The Pas.Our membership enjoyed the presentation, as didmembers of the public. Vice-Chair Karen Costellorepresented the Chapter at the APEGS AGM heldin Regina during May.

Our annual golf tournament was rescheduledto August this year. Typically, the event is held inJune, and is a favourite amongst members who areavid golfers. ■

The Kelsey Chapter Report

J. Cooper, Chair

Chapter Executive:K. Lau, Past ChairK. Costello, Vice ChairP. Rowbotham, Secretary/ TreasurerR. Conner, Member-at-LargeN. Ilich, Member-at-LargeS. Peter, Member-at-Large

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS

T he AeroDesign project is oneof the annual CollegiateDesign Series competitions

sponsored by Society ofAutomotive Engineers (SAE)International. Competition for 2002was held in Palmdale, California,and hosted by Lockheed-Martin.This project challenges engineeringstudents to design and build a radio-controlled aircraft capable of liftingthe maximum possible payloadweight. Competition rules makeseveral limitations on the design.The aircraft must use a specifiedengine, must take off within 200ft,and land within 400ft. The planformarea (the shadow cast by the aircraft) islimited to 1200in.2. Competitionscoring is based on several aspects.Points are given for payload carried,as well as for the accuracy of thepayload prediction, a written

design report, plans, and an oral presentation.

While externally similar to previ-ous entries, virtually all aspects ofthe 2002 aircraft were re-designed.A re-designed spar was used to takebetter advantage of the materialproperties of wood. It made thewing structure stiffer, stronger, andlighter. A new landing-gear systemwas built with reduced rolling resis-tance, improved energy absorption,and modular replacement. Animproved fuselage design permittedeasier tooling, improved compositelayup, better control-line routings,and improved weight distribution.Both electron-beam and autoclavecuring processes were used to makethe fuselage parts and wingtipfences from carbon-fibre compos-ites. Redesigned horizontal and ver-tical stabilizers were of a lighter-weight construction.

In flight testing and prequalifica-tion the aircraft performed impecca-bly – the takeoff roll was short,handling was excellent, and the air-plane required no trim for straight &level flight, even when loaded.

Our written report for the com-petition was substantially improvedand we passed the technical exami-nation with flying colours.

Unfortunately, high winds and astuck throttle-linkage produced ahigh-speed instability in the stabiliz-ers causing the aircraft to crash atcompetition. The aircraft was air-borne with 25.5lbs (3lbs more than2001), but no legal landings weremade.

AeroDesign 2002By: J. M. Symonds, P.Eng.

2002 AeroDesign Team

Continued on page 23

T his Chapter supports approximately 80 mem-bers scattered throughout the south-west cor-ner of the province. Executive has

experienced extensive turnover in the last coupleof years but has continued to provide support and

a common meeting ground for Geoscientists,Engineers and Members-In-Training.

In response to the increased needs of theMembers-In-Training, executive has increasedsupport by way of liasing between community andMembers-in-Training and also by liasing betweenAdmissions and Members-in-Training.

The Westman Chapter would like to thank theguest speakers and attendees at the dinners andnow-popular lunch meetings held throughout theyear. Special thanks to Shirley Matile and her crewfor their time and efforts as well.

Congratulations to the Westman Chapter exec-utive for their efforts and a note to others that newrecruits are always welcome. Executive willendeavour to promote the Association and servethe membership faithfully. ■

Westman Chapter ReportStacy McBride, Chair

Chapter Executive:Dave Ford, Vice-ChairKris Kotyk, SecretaryTrevor Veitch, TreasurerKevin Croteau, Member-at-LargeDon McKibbin, Member-at-LargeLillian Turabian, Member-at-LargeJavier Vidal, Member-at-Large

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL SEPTEMBER 200222

Wednesday, June 19 , 2002By: J.A. Blatz, P.Eng.

COUNCIL DISCUSSES BUDGET MATTERS

T he June 19th meeting of Council was called to order promptly at 12:30p.m. with a welcome from President Moe Barakat. Last-minutechanges to the agenda were made to reflect late-breaking items for con-

sideration and the meeting moved forward.

The first items on the agenda comprised the monitoring report of theExecutive Director on his proposed changes to the admission policies basedon recommendations from the Admission Policy Review Committee(APRC). The changes have been proposed to address concerns outlined inthe APRC document which indicated that current penalties for non-compli-ance with the mandatory MIT program are too harsh. The ExecutiveDirector outlined that the proposal for changes is in its early stages. He willbe reporting back to Council with further recommendations at the Septembermeeting after other committees involved have had an opportunity to partici-pate in discussions about the proposed changes.

The “declaration of compliance” proposal was then brought forward. Theproposal basically requires that all registered members declare that they havemaintained a level of competence consistent with the required skills that theydeem appropriate in their specific field. If approved, the voluntary declara-tion will require practising members to indicate with their signatures on theirregistration renewal forms that they have maintained the competence to pro-vide the services that are required for their current practice, presumably byactively undertaking adequate professional development activities. The pro-posal is to be implemented in 2003.

The Council then moved on to the consent agenda. The first item on the

consent agenda was the budget including the schedule of member fees anddues. Council noted that the fees will be increased slightly in 2003 from$242 to $248 for practising members. One aspect of the budget that raisedsome discussion was the amount charged for academic assessment of geo-science degrees. The cost for this process can be considerable since there isno existing body (equivalent to CEAB) to independently verify the academicqualifications of any specific University Geoscience program for registrationrequirements. More information on the issue is being gathered.

The Council then shifted onto items for decision, where the majority ofthe meeting time was dedicated. A report on the discussions held at theannual CCPE meeting (held this year in St. John’s) was presented. By-Lawchanges proposed for the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM)followed. The President outlined the process for changing By-Laws andwhat was required for the changes that will be tabled at the upcomingmeeting. The Executive Director asked for two councillors to be authorizedto approve the proposed By-Law changes so that they could be mailed tothe membership sufficiently in advance of the 2002 AGM with a report tobe provided to the Council for the September 11 meeting. Following a fewother decision items, the meeting moved into the information items.

The Council went over the coaching report which provided an assess-ment of the Council’s application of the new governance procedures.President Barakat re-iterated how the new process has been allowing theCouncil to focus on the ends and not the detailed processes that are beinghandled at the committee levels. Councillors then discussed how the reportcould be best utilized by all to ensure that the governance model is beingapplied properly and effectively.

Councillor Poetker reported on the meeting of the Joint Board ofArchitects and Engineers. He explained that the direction of the meetings isnot to get By-Laws and codes changed but to develop a memorandum ofagreement to be enforced by the two associations. It was clear that much hasbeen accomplished by the Joint Board but there is more work to be donebefore any formal agreements will be reached.

The meeting adjourned after some final discussion items. ■

Council Report

Department of Civil Engineering

Tenure-Track Faculty PositionsThe Department of Civil Engineering invites applications for a tenure-track, Assistant Professor position in Transportation Engineeringand a tenure-track, Assistant Professor position in Geoenvironmental Engineering, with starting dates of 1 January 2003 or as soon aspossible thereafter. For both positions, the successful candidate: 1) must hold a Ph.D. degree in the relevant area, i.e., transportationor environmental engineering (preference will be given to candidates with a first degree in Civil Engineering); 2) be eligible for regis-tration with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba; 3) will be expected to teach at the undergradu-ate and graduate levels, supervise graduate students, and develop a strong externally funded research program; and 4) must possessexcellent communication and leadership skills, and be committed to working in a team environment.

Transportation Engineering: The successful candidate shall have experience in two or more of the following areas: road safetyengineering; transportation information systems and data linking; applications of intelligent transportation systems; and freight trans-portation. Candidates whose research is applicable to the prairie region will be given preference. Please refer to position AHC341 inall correspondence.

Geoenvironmental Engineering: The successful candidate shall have experience in the remediation of soil and/or water contami-nated by municipal, industrial, or agricultural waste products. The successful candidate should have demonstrated strengths in theareas of chemical, biological, microbiological, and physical processes for remediating contaminated soil, sediments, and water. Pleaserefer to position ABA359 in all correspondence.

The Department (www.umanitoba.ca/civil) has twenty-one faculty members, eleven support staff and approximately two hundredundergraduates. Over $2.3 million is attracted annually in research funding and eighty students are enrolled in graduate studies. Well-equipped facilities are available for research. The Department hosts the administrative headquarters for ISIS Canada, a NetworkCentre of Excellence in Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures (www.isiscanada.com). The University of Manitoba is the oldestuniversity in Western Canada. Winnipeg (www.city.winnipeg.mb.ca) is a mature city known for its high standard of living, afford-able housing, rich cultural scene, and proximity to outstanding wilderness areas that offer outdoor activities in all seasons.

The University of Manitoba encourages applications from qualified women and men, including members of visible minorities,Aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and perma-nent residents will be given priority. Applicants should forward a detailed curriculum vitae, a statement describing teaching andresearch interests, and names and addresses (fax/email included) of three referees to Dr. J. Doering, P.Eng., Head, Department of CivilEngineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 5V6 (email: Jay_Doering@ UManitoba.ca). Applicationsshould be received by 1 November 2002, but will continue to be accepted after this date until the positions are filled.

SEPTEMBER 2002 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 23

A s I contemplated the passingof an old family friend, Irecalled a conversation we

had about 20 years ago. I wasvisiting my home town and Frankand I were discussing the “local”baseball team. He commented thatonly three or four of the playerslived in the district – the rest camefrom surrounding towns that nolonger had teams. The conversationdrifted from baseball to the localrink and the difficulty they werehaving keeping it open. We agreedthat it was a situation that was alltoo common in the rural areas ofwestern Canada.

And then he shocked me by say-ing, “you realize this is all yourfault”.

My shock must have been obvi-ous because he quickly followed upby noting that the “you” he wasreferring to was my profession – notme, personally. We left it there butthe comment kept haunting me.

Two or three years later, onanother visit home, we were sittingin the shade, enjoying some of theend product of the previous year’sbarley crop, when I reminded him ofhis comment, and asked him toexplain what he meant. He thought amoment and then provided me withhis observation of the link betweenengineering design and the decliningnumber of prairie baseball teams.

At that time Frank and his sonwere farming the land he and mydad had farmed, plus the land thathad supported four other familieswhen I was growing up. They wereable to do this because of theimprovements in farm equipmentthat were the direct result of engi-neering design. Wider, bigger, faster,more efficient equipment let the twoof them farm more land with lesseffort. So, the up side was that theyfarmed more land but didn’t work ashard. The down side was that therewere four fewer families associatedwith that particular land base. Andthe same story could be repeated forevery farmer who was still function-ing in the district.

Simply put, my home town wasnow about 33% of what it had been.67% fewer ball players. 67% fewerstudents. 67% fewer grocers. Itexplained much of what I saw whenI looked around me.

He acknowledged that engineershad simply responded to a demandfor better equipment, and hadresponded very well. He agreed thatthe creation of this equipmentallowed him to survive in spite ofthe fact that grain prices were aboutthe same as when I had last helpedhim harvest. He assigned no fault tothe profession, but he saw a clear

linkage between our “success” andrural de-population.

In the intervening years, werevisited the issue as we watchedthe “local” ball team continue toplay where I once played. I wasnever able to advance a plausibleargument that de-linked engineeringdesign from rural depopulation. Mydiscussions with Frank clarified mythinking on the responsibilities ourprofession bears for the designs wecreate. His insight provided me withthe understanding necessary toexplore Billy Koen’s concept of“best change”. “Best” depends onthe perspective we bring to a ques-tion. The new machinery was “best”for Frank and his son. It was not“best” for rural population retention.

We engineers have the skillsrequired to bring new and better“things” into existence. The worldwe live in today is the direct resultof the successful application ofthose skills. Electricity, cars, com-puters, airplanes, artificial hips, skyscrapers, cities and farm machineryall exist because of engineeringdesign. Our profession has causedprofound change and each changehas had both positive and negativeimpacts. On balance, in my view,the changes have been positive –others may disagree.

Because the application of ourcapabilities allows the changes tooccur, we must accept both thecredit and the blame. Next time youfind yourself pushed toward an“expedient” solution, think about thedisappearance of the small towns ofwestern Canada. We do have aresponsibility.

Not all engineering educators goto university and have numerousdegrees. ■

...and just who is responsible?By: M.G.(Ron) Britton, P.Eng.

DesiGnTHOUGHTS ON

and limiting the practice of engineer-ing solely to licensed professionalengineers have been put in place byall of Canada’s provincial and terri-torial governments. The engineeringlicensing bodies are obligated bytheir legislative mandate to enforceagainst inappropriate use of theterms “engineer” and “engineering.”

Microsoft’s earlier decision wasassisting the MCSE holders so theydid not mistakenly use the title engi-neer or otherwise hold themselves

out as qualified to practise engineer-ing which would require the engi-neering profession’s licensingbodies to take action against them.

Ms. Lemay said it would havebeen prudent for Microsoft Canadato have listened to other groups,beyond those with a vested interest,to determine what title should beused to avoid confusion and preventMCSE titleholders from encounter-ing enforcement from the engineer-ing licensing bodies. “It is prettyobvious that the certificate holderswould see value in the use of thetitle ‘engineer,’” she said. “But engi-neering is a profession and with that

comes an obligation to protect thepublic. It is important for the publicto know that the term ‘engineer’refers to a person with a universityengineering education and engineer-ing experience who follows a pro-fessional code of ethics, notsomeone with just a few months ofIT training.”

“Microsoft’s advice to their cer-tificate holders in May 2001 waswell placed then and it continues tobe today, despite their recentannouncement,” Ms. Lemay said.“MCSE certificate holders would bewell served to continue heeding thisadvice.” ■

MCSE NOT an Engineerin CanadaContinued from page 4

We continue to work on the nextgeneration of AeroDesign aircraft.This year a prototype carbon-fibrespar was tested for possible use infuture aircraft. For 2003 there will

be a significant change to the rules,removing the limitation on planformarea and replacing it with a 72” lim-itation on wingspan. This substan-tially alters the focus of ourdevelopment efforts but, by refocus-ing on our design process and build-ing upon our existing pool of

aircraft construction experience, wewill endeavour to yet again producea top-notch competitive aircraft.

This year’s competition teamconsisted of the following members:Matthew Joyce – Team LeaderAndrea KrajJonathan DohieGrant Johnson – UMSAE PresidentDon Hatch – PilotMalcolm Symonds – FacultyAdvisor

Thanks to our sponsors for pro-viding the funding, materials, andfacilities required to build the air-craft. It is the support of industrythat makes the project possible andencourages the development of thenext generation of engineers forManitoba. Your contributions areappreciated. ■

AeroDesign 2002Continued from page 21

AeroDesign 2002 Aircraft at Competition

Sponsored by:

Underwritten by:

If you would like a copy of the CCPE sponsored Term Life Insurance brochure and application, call The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (the underwriter of theplan) at 1-877-598-CCPE (2273) (toll-free) Monday to Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

www.manulife.com/ccpe/rates Do you know how much life insurance you need to protect the people you love and

everything you’ve worked hard for? Many people are unsure. Now you don’t have to be.

www.manulife.com/ccpe/rates helps you explore your term life insurance options with

quick and easy online insurance tools, all from the comfort of your own home.

Evaluate your current and future life insurance needs based on your

personal and financial situations at the click of a key. Plus, get an

instant quote on the cost of coverage you may need. If you like

what you see, you can transfer your figures to a secure online

application form.

Best of all, if you bookmark this site you can return to it any time

your responsibilities change, and check if your life insurance cover-

age still measures up.

No password is required!Just point your browser to www.manulife.com/ccpe/ratesto get the answers you need. Do it today!

www.manulife.com/ccpe/rateshas the tools you can use to:

Find out how much protection you need

Get a no-obligation quote instantly

Apply online – simply and securely

▲▲

▲