new dean of engineering association of professional...

The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientistsof the Province of Manitoba

OCTOBER 1999www.apegm.mb.ca

As of July 1, 1999, the Univer-sity of Manitoba has a newDean: Dr. Doug Ruth, Ph.D.,

P. Eng.

Dr. Ruth was born and raised inManitoba, and he received both hisBachelor’s and Master’s degreesfrom the University of Manitoba.He then went on to complete hisPh.D. at the University of Waterloo.After graduation, he spent close toten years working as a researchengineer in the oil industry beforereturning to the University ofManitoba where he has served asprofessor, Department Head ofMechanical Engineering, as well asAssociate Dean of the Faculty. Hislist of teaching and research awardsis far too long to list. He is alsoactively involved with a number ofprofessional societies and organiza-tions.

I had the opportunity to ask thenew Dean a few questions about his

plans for his term and would like toshare his responses with you.

On engineering education: We arequickly establishing a reputation asa Canadian leader in the develop-ment of design components withinour courses, specifically the first-year engineering design course. Wehave already started the discussionabout how to bring new educationalsystems into our programs. We nowhave some of the most advancedmultimedia education facilitiesavailable, which will result in amovement toward a more tutorial-based system, introducing back intothe program aspects important to theengineering practitioner. Basically,we will use more advanced teachingmethods to get back to the basicsand ensure that the information ourstudents need is being deliveredeffectively.

On the research front: We have anextremely accomplished research

program and a verystrong graduate-studentprogram, but there areareas in need ofimprovement. Recentreductions in teachingpositions have reducedthe number of post-graduate coursesoffered, resulting instudents attending otheruniversities to meettheir core courserequirements. I wouldlike to concentrate onstandardizing corerequirements for gradu-ate courses. This willbe a real challenge,considering we are in aperiod of re-growth.Many of our professorswho have been

New Dean of EngineeringAppointed at U of MBy: J. A. Blatz, EIT

Continued on page 4Dr. Doug Ruth, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba

Friday, October 29, 1999

Professional Development Conference8:00 a.m. Registration8:40 – 9:25 Information Technology and the Death of

Engineering as We Know It?9:25 – 10:00 GPS/GIS Introduction and Impacts on

Engineering and Geoscience10:30 – 11:00 Security Issues in e-commerce and Internet

Communication11:00 – 12:00 Issues and Impacts of Technology on How We

Communicate

12:00 noon Lunch & Networking

1:00 – 1:45 Inter-personal Communication in Relation toConflict Resolution

1:45 – 3:00 Managing Change/Managing Technology3:15 – 4:30 Panel Discussion: Technology & Society4:30 – 4:45 Closing Remarks

Saturday, October 30, 1999

8:30 a.m. Registration9:00 – 10:00 Information Session10:30 – 12:00 Issues Forum12:00 – 1:30 Lunch & Guest Speaker 1:30 – 4:00 Business Meeting

6:00 Reception

7:15 Presentation of APEGM AwardsDinner & Entertainment

Canad Inns Fort Garry, Winnipeg

THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL OCTOBER 19992

OCTOBER 1999

Published by the Association of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba

850A Pembina Highway, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3M 2M7

Ph. (204) 474-2736 Fax (204) 474-5960

E-Mail: [email protected]

APEGM COUNCILM.G. Britton, P.Eng., PresidentA.E. Ball, P.Eng.; E. Eddy, Ph.D., B.P.T.,M.C.P.A., M.C.S.P.; R.J. Eschenwecker, P.Eng.; L.R. Ferchoff, P.Eng.; J.R. Hosang, P.Eng.; J.M. MacLeod, P.Eng.; R.N. Matthews;A.J. Poetker, P.Eng.; A.J. Pollard, P.Eng.; L. Quinn; S.H. Rizkalla, P.Eng.;C.S. Roberts, P.Eng.; B. Thomson, R.N.;P. Washchyshyn, P.Eng., Past-President

APEGM STAFF D.A. Ennis, P. Eng., Exec. Director and RegistrarS.M. Matile, P. Eng., Director of AdmissionsK.A. Buhr, P. Eng., Manager, AdministrationJ.C. McKinley, Administrative OfficerD. Bilodeau, Admissions Co-ordinatorE. Ryan, Accounting & Membership L. Dupas, Receptionist/SecretaryK.D. Birrell, Administrative Secretary

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE B. Stimpson, P.Eng., Chair; M. Baril, P.Eng.; J.A. Blatz, EIT; J.W. Bogan, P.Eng.; V.L. Dutton, P. Eng. (Ret.); A.N. Kempan, P.Eng. (Ret); M.W. Morrison, EIT;J.E. Nordstrom, EIT

CORRESPONDENTS

P. Yamada, P. Eng., Thompson S. Trivett, P. Eng., Brandon

The Communications Committee would like to hear

from you. Comments on your newsletter can be for-

warded to us through the Association office. Members

are also encouraged to submit articles and photos on

engineering or business topics that would be of interest

to the membership.

Although the information contained in this publication

is believed to be correct, no representation or warranty,

expressed or implied, is made as to its accuracy and

completeness. Opinions expressed are not necessarily

those held by the APEGM or the APEGM Council.

R.N. BuschauD.W. Chambers (AB)B.W.J. CorkalP.E. DaviesR. Deziel (PQ)C.W. Dubeau (ON)M.J. Ferguson (SK)K.D. GawneR.D. GinnW.R. GunterR.C. HomeniukJ.W.P. LengyelB. Mandelzys (ON)W.M. Maudsley (BC)

M.L. Menard P. NarayanaswamyC.N. PerrettD.S. RapindaC.R. Ratay (AB)K.R. RichardsP.G. RowbothamE.B. Scalera (ON)E. SchrothG.D. SchrumD.L. Stregger R.J. Tremblay (ON)H.C. TurnerA. Yassa (QC)

New Members Registered July & August 1999

D.J. Seargeant

Reinstatements July & August 1999

F. Arsene (ON)J.E. Burson (TX)

E. Schultz (FL)D.M. Stuart (FL)

Licences IssuedJuly & August 1999

R.D. AndrushukR.K. BeardyK.R. BindleK.R. BraidK.A. BushM.J. DugganM.L.C. FooR.M. IlaganS. JanjicR. JanzicM. JojicK.D. KlymchukM.A. KuuselaD.E. KristjansonJ.P. LaningaC.S. Leong

K.L. LuncT.V. LuongR.B. MacGowanW. PakinganA.R. PowellC.M. RectoS.J. ShabagaC.J. SpivakH.D. TownshendJ.T. TurnerZ. VuksaJ.C. WaddellD.B. WiebeD.D. WilsonD.P. Zilinski

EITs Enrolled July & August 1999

In MemoriamThe Association has received with

deep regret notification of the deaths of the following members:

Wilfrid A. Hinz

Stanley L. Wilson

D esign Engineer. SystemsEngineer. EnvironmentalGeoscientist. Software

Engineer. MaintenanceEngineer. IntermediateEngineer. All of these titles, andany other titles containing thewords “engineer” or “geoscien-tist” (except for “PowerEngineer” and “AircraftMaintenance Engineer”) areprotected, under the “prohibi-tions” section of theEngineering and GeoscientificProfessions Act (“the Act”), forthe use of registered membersof this Association only.

The Act requires that thepractices of engineering andgeoscience be carried out byonly registered professionalengineers and geoscientists (andpersons working under theirdirect supervision). It alsorestricts the use of the titles“engineer” and “geoscientist” tomembers of this Association’stwo professions.

And who does the govern-ment obligate to administer theAct? The Association. US! We

(the 3000 engineers and geosci-entists in Manitoba) have alegal obligation to ensure thatno one is misleading the publicby using an inappropriate title.We have a responsibility to thepublic (and to the credibility ofthe professions) to ensure thatonly qualified engineers andgeoscientists practise engineer-ing and geoscience in thisprovince, and that only quali-fied practitioners call them-selves engineers andgeoscientists.

Almost every week,Manitoba newspapers containadvertisements for engineeringand geoscience positions. Manyspecify a requirement for regis-tration with this Association –for which we are most apprecia-tive. Many of the firms placingthe advertisements are aware ofthe requirements of the Act andfully intend to fill the positionswith qualified registered engi-neers or geoscientists eventhough their advertisementsmay not specify this. Some,however, are unaware that it is

illegal to give an engineeringtitle to someone who is notqualified to practise engineer-ing. It is our responsibility toapprise them of the require-ments of the Act, and ensurethat anyone practising engineer-ing and/or holding an engineer-ing position is registered withthis Association.

If you know of anyone whoholds an engineering title but isnot registered with this Assoc-iation, please consider it yourduty to either arrange for cor-rective action or notify theAssociation office so that wemay investigate. Most of theoffenders are simply unawareof the Act and are quite willingto comply, once they are madeaware of its requirements.

Meanwhile, a great bigTHANK YOU to all of thefirms and government depart-ments which advertise andenforce professional registrationas a condition of employmentfor engineering positions. Youare making our Act enforce-ment task a lot easier! ■

Is Your Company Using EngineeringTitles Correctly? By: S.M. Matile, P. Eng.

OCTOBER 1999 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL 3

A lmost a year has passed sincethe Association honoured mewith the privilege of serving

as its President. It has been a year ofchallenge and opportunity. It hasalso been a post-graduate course inprofessional governance.

When I accepted this opportu-nity, I had spent four years onCouncil and felt that I had gained areasonably thorough understandingof our organization and the issuesthat required attention. Now, withthe benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I real-ize that my view was actually quiteintrospective. In spite of our provin-cial mandate and our provincial leg-islation, the ebb and flow of deci-sions outside our legislated sphereof influence are, to say the least, significant. This presents manage-ment problems for your elected rep-resentatives and your Associationstaff.

A major “outside” issue toengulf APEGM Council in1998/1999 was the debate over theSoftware Engineering program atMemorial University and CCPE’sreaction to that program. This led todebates over protection of the title“engineer” and interference withacademic freedom. Many of youchose to express your opinion on thesubject, and that input allowed thoseof us who had to react on yourbehalf to do so in a more informedmanner. It also reinforced the needto take a much less prescriptiveview of the basic definitions uponwhich our association is founded.

The Professional DevelopmentBy-Law vote of last Fall illustrated aneed to advance more effort to seekout member opinion. We haveattempted to do just that. The Mem-bership Competence Task Force wasestablished to find out what youwant Council to do on your behalfwhen it comes to representing our-selves as competent professionals.You will find a report from thisgroup elsewhere in this issue of theKeystone Professional.

Another impact of the Profes-sional Development By-Law votewas to cause members of Council toaccept that our vision of the purpose

of APEGM and the visions of themembership were not exactly insync. We have spent a considerableamount of time attempting to correctthat shortcoming.

One of the interesting statisticsto emerge as we attempted to gain abetter understanding of APEGM isthe nature of our membership.About one quarter of APEGMmembers live outside Manitoba; forthe most part, in Ontario, BritishColumbia and Alberta. Assumingthat these engineers and geoscien-tists are also members in theirprovince of residence, they find

themselves subject to a second, orthird, set of “issues”. Their issuesbecome our issues. In Ontario, thequestion of advocacy has been asubject of vigorous debate. BritishColumbia has the problem of techni-cal specialist certification, and whowill control it. Alberta has a matur-ing mandatory professional develop-ment program. The unansweredquestion for APEGM Council is,how do these “external” debatesimpact on what we should be doing?The answer to that question, ofcourse, depends on the wishes ofmembership, not the Council.

So where does this lead to? It isapparent that we need to improvecommunication among all members.This is accomplished not by creatinga new magazine or holding orga-nized forums, but, rather, by encour-aging each member to write, phoneor e-mail in reaction to things thatare either proposed or “accom-plished”. It is easy for your Councilto become buried in the mountains

of paper that flow through the sys-tem. It is easy for the staff tobecome buried in the details of theirrespective tasks. I have often sug-gested that education is too impor-tant to leave to the academics.Similarly, governance of our profes-sion is too important to leave tothose of us who have been elected toCouncil.

So, as my year in the Chairwinds down, I would like to thankthose who have supported myefforts on your behalf. The APEGMstaff have, as I was told they would,provided outstanding support. TheCouncil has contributed wellbeyond any reasonable level ofexpectation. And those of you whocared enough to take the time toexpress your opinions on the issuesof the day deserve special thanks.As an organization, APEGM needsmembers who care. Please continueto provide your elected memberswith your input. It is the single mostimportant piece of information wecan receive. ■

President’s MessageRon Britton, P.Eng.

Making Haste Slowly…

T he University of Manitoba’sContinuing Education Divi-sion is a participating partner

in the Engineering Institute ofCanada’s (EIC) Technical Profes-sional Development Program.Management Development Pro-grams (partnership initiative of theUniversity’s Faculty of Manage-ment and Continuing EducationDivision) are assigned CEUs(Continuing Education Units) forpurposes of tracking continuing professional education.

One program that will be of par-ticular interest to engineers is theUniversity of Manitoba Mid-Management Program, which is a12-week series designed to providemiddle managers and high-potentialmanagers with the basic conceptsand practices of business manage-ment. The program is a broad sur-vey of subject areas normally foundin a business-school degree pro-gram. The program is intended toprovide participants with the knowl-edge needed to work cross-function-ally within their organizations.There are no prerequisites for thisprogram.

The purpose of the program is tohelp practising managers becomemore effective in current businesstheories and practice. This 12-week

survey of business subjects will giveparticipants a framework for makinginformed decisions about issuesaffecting their company and career.The scope of the program will allowparticipants to develop a broaderunderstanding of functional areasoutside normal activities and profes-sional training.

The program is designed for:

■ Mid-level managers with severalyears of experience who want todevelop a broader awareness ofthe many aspects of business

■ Technical professionals movinginto management positions

■ Managers who want to becomeconversant with a variety offunctional areas in order to moveup in the organization

■ Executives or business graduateswho need to update their busi-ness skills and education

■ Professionals who are interestedin setting up their own practiceor who currently have a practicebut require more knowledge inorder to manage more effectively

Each three-hour session focuseson a different aspect affecting orga-nizations today:

The Challenge of Leadership

Decision Making

Understanding FinancialStatements

Using Accounting Information

Human Resource Management

Information ResourceManagement

Marketing Management

Customer Satisfaction andQuality

Managing Change

Operations Management

Financial Management

Strategic Management

The Mid-Management Programis 3.6 CEUs.

The Program will be offeredJanuary 10-April 3, 2000 (Mondayevenings), 6-9 p.m. at the Faculty ofManagement.

The $1,295 enrollment feeincludes tuition, textbook, coursebinder, and handout materials.Additional registrants from the samecompany are charged a reduced rateof $1,165 per person.

To get a brochure with moredetailed information call 474-7189;1-888-216-7011 (toll free); or visitour website at www.umanitoba.ca/ConEd/CEP

Programs Earn Continuing Education UnitsBy: M. Peterson Elias

Continued on page 6


Letter to the Editor

Sir,

In response to the “President’s Message” in theJune issue, it should not come as a surprise thatthe Newfoundland court has found that our pro-fession does not have any propriety right to theuse of the word engineer.

Back in the 70’s, this writer argued before acabinet committee of the then labour minister,Howard Pawley, against using the term “PowerEngineer” in a proposed Act and was given thesame answer.

We simply do not seem to grasp the fact thatwe are our own worst enemies when it comes tothe preservation of our right to reservation oftitle under the Act.

For instance, in the past we also successfullyargued before the Manitoba Court against inclu-sion of employee Professional Engineers into anon-professional union as proposed in theLabour Relations Act. Howard Pawley unsuc-cessfully appealed this in the Court of Queen’s

Bench. Yet regardless of this finding Profes-sional Engineers in the employ of the ProvincialGovernment voluntarily joined a non-profes-sional union.

Our local consulting engineering firms regu-larly advertise for engineering positions withoutany mention of APEGM membership require-ments. Also, the term Professional Engineer isseldom seen in ads for engineering positions.Practising in other jurisdictions requires regis-tration with the Association or Ordre in thatjurisdiction according to the Director OfAdmissions. However, Professional Engineersworking for the Federal Government areexempt, and so are the military. And the listgoes on and on.

No wonder the general public and the judi-ciary are confused! But where does the CCPEstand? They should have jumped into the fray inNewfoundland with all the legal power theycould muster to emphasize the fact that theyalone are empowered to accredit engineeringcourses in Canadian universities. Instead, CCPEare busy debating the pros and cons of “CarverManagement Strategies”.

All these anomalies have not gone unnoticedby Federal and Provincial politicians. Attemptswere already made years ago to curb the respon-sibilities of the professions viz:

“Report on the legal status of Professionalsin Manitoba” and “The Report of the Profes-sional Organizations Committee to the Ministry

of the Attorney General of Ontario” to name afew.

These reports propose the formation of a“Professions Board” to oversee all professionswith the power of decision making regardinglicensure and the appropriateness of the existingdivision of functions (for instance betweenarchitecture and engineering).

Before all this becomes a fact of life, ourprofession should wake up and take a moreactive role in advising regulatory bodies so thatengineering concerns are being addressed inpolitical decision-making. However, most engi-neers would rather excel in their respectivefunctions than waste their efforts debating in apolitical forum. So we find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation from which we must extricate our-selves if we wish to enhance our position insociety.

Perhaps all Canadian EngineeringAssociations and the Ordre should bandtogether and forcefully lobby the CCPE to con-vince the Federal Government that they repre-sent the voice of all Canadian Engineers and,therefore, should deserve status in any debate ontechnological issues affecting the public.

If we do not act effectively we could findourselves relegated to the rear echelon with a“Professions Board” that regulates our profes-sion.

Sincerely,F.A. Jost, P.Eng.(Ret.)

extremely productive are now near-ing retirement. We must find strongnew professors to fill these positionsand support them in order to facili-tate the transition for the benefit ofthe students.

On the industry perspective: Thefaculty has a great deal to contributeto the economy of Manitoba, whichis very technically based. We needto share our knowledge and capabil-ities with the high-tech sector.Research projects can be academi-cally challenging as well as produc-tive for industry. I would like to seemore activity that models EuropeanUniversities where engineering fac-ulties have institutes within them.The institutes focus on research fora certain sector of the economy. Wehave already moved down this pathwith facilities such as the IntelligentSensing for Innovative Structures(ISIS) Centre of Excellence. ISIS isa perfect example of groundbreak-ing research with advanced practicalapplications which are being imple-mented concurrently.

On the undergraduate programbecoming more practitioner-ori-

ented to ease the transition toindustry (a question related to themovement of CEAB to increase thedesign component in many courses):We have two type of graduates: the “typical graduate” who goesdirectly into industry with aBachelor’s degree and the graduatewho chooses to pursue graduatestudies. There is also a combinationwhere the Master’s degree is essen-tially the base requirement for cer-tain areas of practice, such asgeotechnical engineering andpetroleum engineering. I believethat in 20 years most areas of engi-neering will look for a Master’sdegree as the entry-level degree forindustry positions, while theBachelor’s degree will prepare youwell for going on to something morespecialized such as science, man-agement, or law. Engineeringschools have been under a lot ofpressure lately to introduce newmaterial into the curriculum –specifically for students with Bache-lor’s degrees going directly intoindustry. People are looking formanagement material and manycomplain there is a lack of formaltraining in this area. They note thetrend for engineers to become man-agers five to ten years after gradua-

tion. I would argue that there issomething we are doing right inengineering that allows graduates tomove into management roles veryquickly. Anything we pull out of ourprogram may dilute the basic engi-neering education that is currentlyallowing them to succeed. Havingsaid that, there are many areas thatwe need to work on. We also needto stimulate and challenge under-graduate students to choose careersin teaching and research and pro-ceed to graduate studies. This isoneof the reasons for the movementback to a tutorial-based curriculum.

On skills-based courses: In the nearfuture I expect to see technical elec-tives including skills-based courses,such as machine-shop practice,welding, and AutoCAD, such asthose taught at institutions such asRed River College and South Win-nipeg Technical Centre. An engineerwill not be a technologist, a machin-ist, or a welder. However, in order tobe able to work effectively withthese skilled trades-people, theremust be a basic understanding oftheir skills. I believe that if, on yourfirst day as a mechanical engineer,you walk into a machine shop andyou don’t know the difference

between a drill press and a lathe,you will be seen as incompetent andyou will be viewed that way as longas you work there. If you know thedifference, you will be accepted. Weneed to understand how concretetests are performed, how to hook upas well as manufacture computers,and how to solder as well as design acircuit board. We will not be askedto perform these tasks in our careers,but we need to understand the skillsets required and to appreciate thedifficulty of the tasks in order to helpus communicate our ideas to thosewho will implement our designs.

On engineering education: Our realstrength in engineering is breadth inthe pure and applied sciences, andthe sharing of program componentsamong departments. This allows aBiosystems engineer to know a littleabout civil engineering, a mechani-cal engineer to know a little aboutelectrical engineering, etc. Thisbreadth allows us to interact withmanagers and other engineers whilemaintaining a very deep knowledgeof our respective specialties. Weneed to have all these components inour program. We are not training ourstudents to enter a specific industry

New Dean of EngineeringContinued from page 1

Continued on page 8


For further information contact the CCPE National Scholarship Program

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers401 - 116 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5G3

Tel-(613)232-2474, Ext. 246Fax-(613)230-5759

E-mail: [email protected] Website - http://www.ccpe.ca

ENCON Insurance Managers

Suite 700, 350 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 1A4Telephone: 613-786-2000 • Facsimile: 613-786-2001 Toll Free 1-800-267-6684 www.encon.ca

APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 1, 2000

ENCON offers an endowment in the amount of $7,500 annually to an

individual wishing to pursue studies in the area of engineering

failure investigation, risk management,and/or materials testing.

As CCPE endorsed insuranceprogram managers since 1970, we believe this field of engineering

dealing with analysis of materials failure and accident prevention

to be an integral aspect of risk management for

professionals in the 90’s.

CCPE National Scholarships2000 Call for Entries

The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE)invites entries to the 2000 CCPE National Scholarships. Sixcash awards totalling $52,500 will be presented to worthyCanadian engineers in support of advanced studies andresearch.

To be eligible, candidates must be registered as full members ofone or more of the 12 provincial and territorial associ-ations/ordre which regulate the profession of engineering inCanada.

The following scholarships are available:

● Three CCPE–MANULIFE FINANCIAL Scholarshipsvalued at $10,000 each to provide financial assistance toengineers returning to university for further study or researchin an engineering field. Candidates must be accepted orregistered in a Faculty of Engineering.

● Two CCPE–MELOCHE MONNEX Scholarships of$7,500 each to support engineers returning to university forfurther study or research in a field other than engineering.Candidates must be accepted or registered in a Facultyother than Engineering. The field of study chosen shouldfavour the acquisition of knowledge which enhances perfor-mance in the engineering profession.

● A CCPE–ENCON Endowment of $7,500 will be awardedto a professional engineer pursuing studies in the area ofengineering failure investigation, risk management, and/ormaterials testing. This area of engineering is concerned withanalyzing the causes of materials failure and preventing acci-dents in the industrial, manufacturing, or construction sector.

The Deadline for all applications in all categories is:

April 1st, 2000

Scholarship application forms are available from your provin-cial or territorial professional engineering association/ordre orfrom:

CCPE National Scholarship Program, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers,

401 - 116 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5G3Tel - (613) 232-2474, Ext. 246; Fax - (613) 230-5759;

E-mail – [email protected] – http//www.ccpe.ca

CCPE thanks ENCON Insurance Managers Inc., ManulifeFinancial, and MELOCHE MONNEX INC. and its sub-sidiaries, Monnex Insurance Brokers Limited and J. MelocheInc., for their support of the CCPE National ScholarshipProgram.


1. Description

Flextime is a systemby which employeesare provided somedegree of freedomto choose theirworking hours.

Typical flextimearrangements definecore hours duringwhich all employees must bepresent on the job. Sucharrangements include flex bandsat the beginning and at the endof each day during whichemployees make up the neces-sary number of hours of work.

Typically, employees will bepaid under the assumption thatthey are working a standardnumber of hours; some adjust-ment may be necessary if thepaid hours differ from the actualhours worked. These adjust-ments are made at the end of a“settlement period” which maybe anywhere from a day to sev-eral weeks. In this way, employ-ees can work extra hours everyday in order to gain an extra dayoff during the settlement period.Alternatively, many flextimeprograms also allow for somedegree of work week compres-sion by which employees com-plete the prescribed number ofweekly hours in fewer than fivefull days.

2. Considerations

Flextime allows some flexibilityto an individual’s work schedulewithout any effect on income orbenefits. Typically, flextime will

not address the problem of over-work. It may, however, reducestress if the work schedule isone of the main problems.

Advantages

■ improves comfort and effi-ciency on the job

■ can tailor workday to familycommitments and schedules(such as taking children toand from care givers orbeing home when childrenreturn from school)

■ allows changes in schedulewithout any reduction inhours and, thus, income

■ may accommodate non-rou-tine commitments such asfamily illness, health careappointments, or specialevents

■ potential for more conve-nient commuting

Disadvantages

■ greater effort may berequired to organize ade-quate staff supervision

■ greater difficulty in coordi-nating group activities

■ can sometimes run afoul ofovertime legislation ■

James S. Townsend, P.Eng. recently achieved Fellow status in theAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers. The ASAE Fellow Induc-tion Ceremony was held at their International Annual Meeting in con-junction with the Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineers (CSAE).

Townsend’s peers in the ASAE nominated him for the award. TheASAE Board of Trustees approved his nomination as an agriculturalengineer of extraordinary accomplishments. Townsend, a member ofASAE for 41-years, recently retired professor from the University ofManitoba, is currently president of SEATAB Consulting Services inWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. ■

Engineers in the News Other ManagementDevelopment Programs:

Professional Development forSenior, Middle, and High-PotentialManagers.

Two-and three-day programs –interactive and highly focused onsuch topics as:

■ Accounting for Non-FinancialManagers

■ Developing a Business Plan■ Developing and Maintaining a

Customer Focus■ Negotiating for Success■ Managerial Decision Making■ Organizational Analysis (one

day)■ Effective Business

Communication■ Developing a Marketing Plan■ International Finance■ Leadership AND MORE ■

Continuing EducationUnitsContinued from page 3

A sub-committee of the Women in Engineering Advisory Committee (WEAC)has prepared a series of articles to provide information to members ofAPEGM about flexible working arrangements that will appear in “The Key-stone Professional” over the next six to seven issues. The members of thesub-committee are: Brenda Danielson (Chair), Elan Swatek (WEAC Chair),Meghan O’Laughlin, Carolyn Geddert, Kelly Olischefski, and RobinHutchinson.

This series of articles is intended to serve as a reference tool for profes-sional engineers and their employers when considering flexible workplacearrangements. Such arrangements assist men and women wishing to balancetheir work and personal commitments such as family, community, education,professional development, religion and general interests.

In today’s economic culture where dual-income households prevail, theneed for alternative work arrangements has never been greater. The challengeof balancing multiple responsibilities can cause employees to experiencefatigue, difficulty concentrating, and absent-mindedness. This, in turn, affectscorporate profitability by reducing productivity and performance. Flexibilityin the workplace is clearly a solution that benefits both engineers and theiremployers. Employees who find their lifestyles satisfying and rewardingbecause of the ability to balance all commitments will be hard-working, dedi-cated, and productive.

Described in this series of articles are seven practical flexible workingarrangements: flexible hours, job sharing, permanent part-time work,telecommuting, v-time, on-site day care, and phased retirement. Each sectionprovides a brief description of the arrangement along with considerations,advantages, and disadvantages.

It is important to note that successful flexible workplace arrangements areachieved through mutual trust, compromise, negotiation, and above allFLEXIBILITY between the employee and employer. Both parties areresponsible for ensuring that the arrangement is suitable and is working.Some employees may prefer to prepare a detailed proposal outlining theirinterest in a flexible workplace arrangement or that their employer adopt for-mal policies to address these issues. Others may slowly migrate to anarrangement preferring the informal arrangements that are made betweenthemselves and their immediate supervisor. Every situation is different.Formal policies are designed to protect the employee but in some instancesare too rigid or, on the contrary, too open to interpretation. Informal arrange-ments may initially work well but are subject to re-consideration in the eventthat supervisors change.

Recognizing a general lack of understanding of flexible workplacearrangements, this series of articles has been prepared with the hopes ofheightening people’s awareness of their options. We encourage all readers toshare the information presented with their peers and their Human Resourcesdepartment.

The following is the first in a series of seven.

Practical Flexible WorkingArangementsBy: B.A.K. Danielson, P.Eng.

FlexibleHours


$10,000For Your Pursuitof Excellence.

The Manufacturers Life InsuranceCompany, underwriters of your life insurance and RRSP programs, shares yourdrive to excel. That’s why, together with theCanadian Council of ProfessionalEngineers, we sponsor a ScholarshipProgram to promote excellence inengineering.

Through this Program, we offer three$10,000 scholarships to provide financial assistance to engineers returningto university for further study or researchin an engineering field. Candidatesmust be accepted or registered in afaculty of Engineering.

For details, please contact:National Scholarship Program

CANADIAN COUNCILOF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS#401–116 Albert Street, Ottawa,

Ontario K1P 5G3.FAX: (613) 230-5759

EMAIL: [email protected]://www.ccpe.ca

The deadline for applications is April 1, 2000.

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

L ast October, a professionaldevelopment program as pro-posed in a bylaw was defeated

by a wide margin. Following thatmembership decision, Councilpassed a motion to appoint a TaskForce to provide a recommendationfor a way forward. The MemberCompetence Task Force, which wasformed in early 1999, represents abroad cross-section of the member-ship in terms of opinion, discipline(including geoscience), gender,level of experience, and size andtype of organization. Given the con-troversy associated with the earlierprogram, and the wide range ofopinion, the Task Force has oper-ated using a consensus approach -everyone must be able to agree or“live-with” a decision.

The Member Competence TaskForce defined for itself a specificobjective: “To recommend a processthat will demonstrate to the public-at-large due diligence on the part ofthe Association in assuring appro-priate competence and ethicalbehavior of its members and whichwill be accepted by the member-ship.”

In order to determine how tomeet the objective the Task Forcewent “back to basics”, exploring avariety of basic questions: What arewe trying to achieve from a ‘global’perspective? What do we reallyneed? What are the expectations of

the stakeholders of engineering ser-vices? One of the major results ofour deliberations was to formulate,as most engineers would, a model –illustrated in Figure 1.

The Task Force brain-stormed toidentify a full range of possiblemethods to achieve the objective.However, as we set out to developcriteria for evaluation, we againcame up against a lack of data onthe expectations and needs of ourcustomers – the stakeholders ofengineering services in ourprovince. As a result, we are now inthe process of developing a stake-holder survey to establish thoseneeds and expectations prior to con-tinuing our work.

It is the intent of the Task Forceto logically develop a recommenda-tion to Council for the way forward.The limits of possibilities rangefrom the extremes of “doing noth-ing” to some formal mandatory pro-gram. However, well before thatrecommendation is developed, theTask Force needs your feedback onboth our approach and our model.This article is the first communica-tion of our process. It is also theintent of the Task Force to hold aninformation session at the AnnualGeneral Meeting in October.

Please provide feedback to theteam via the APEGM office. Wewill continue to provide updates onour progress. ■

Member Competence TaskTeam Works To Find a WayForward…By: R.J. Eschenwecker, P.Eng.

Figure 1: Task Force Model

Mistakes (unskilled Practice)

Misrepresentation(professional misconduct)

inclusive

PublicInteraction

measurable

proactive

PDExperienceInitial educationPublic perception of competence

EnforcementEthical Management


Tuesday, July 13, 1999By: B. Stimpson, P.Eng.

AT WHICH PROGRESS IS MADE ON A NUMBER OF FRONTS

T he busy summer season required one councillor to squeeze in twohours between field visits, while another made time in the middle of a“panic” business situation to phone to take part in a discussion of a par-

ticular agenda item. Six other councillors were able to give all or most of theafternoon to the meeting, which lasted from 1.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Severalimportant steps were taken by Council over that time.

Negotiations continue with the Manitoba Association of Architectsregarding the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOU), which wasdue to expire on June 18th, 1999. In order for discussions to continue, theMAA approved an extension of the current MOU to July 30th, 1999 (MAAhad earlier indicated that it intended to let the MOU lapse as of June 18th).Your Council reviewed and approved a position statement on the areas ofprofessional practice in relation to the MAA, which would then go forwardto a Joint Board meeting with the MAA on July 26th.

Under The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Act, a partnership,corporation, or other entity engaged in the practice of professional engineer-ing or professional geoscience is entitled to carry on such practice in its ownname provided that it has a Certificate of Authority. APEGM’s powers todeal with such “group practice” are laid out in the Act, together with any By-Laws written thereunder. In order to develop these By-laws, Councilapproved documents dealing with incorporation, categories of entity,requirements for a Certificate of Authorization, and insurance requirementsfor a Certificate. Furthermore, legal counsel for APEGM has provided anopinion that the requirements for a Certificate of Authority depend upon the“point of interface between the operating entity and the consumer.” In coun-

sel’s view, this restriction arises from the definition in the Act of the practiceof professional engineering in which engineering is viewed as a “service”rather than the goods or products that result from that service. Thus, in thisview, a trailer manufacturer selling “off the line” standardized trailers wouldnot require a certificate because the design and testing work (which must bedone by a professional engineer or the holder of a Certificate of Authority),is being “consumed internally” and not being provided at the point of inter-face with the public.

Our new Act has also drawn attention to The Limitations of Actions Actof Manitoba. Council reviewed a position paper on reforming the Act pre-pared by a Task Group from APEGM and the Consulting Engineers ofManitoba and approved the proposal whichproposed that the Act beamended to reduce the current ultimate liability period of 30 years to 10years. It was also recommended that the position paper be provided to thearchitects, land surveyors and technologists with the request that they pursuethe matter with the Government concurrently or jointly.

Council was pleased to learn that the Canadian Geoscience CouncilStandards Board has been able to develop recommended syllabi for geology,geophysics, and environmental science. Council members received copies ofthe document.

As readers of The Keystone Professional will note in this issue, the legalbattle now underway with Memorial University, CCPE, and APEGN overthe right to use the term “Software Engineering” , has elicited some interest-ing letters from our own membership. While there is an expressed desire byDeans of Engineering to see the matter settled outside the courts, APEGM’sPresident, Dr. Ron Britton, has written correspondence presenting his con-cern that the academic community tends to see the problem as only an aca-demic one to be solved by the academy. However, “there is life beyond thecampus” and the action taken by universities in naming programs any waythey choose, can have serious consequences for the Associations who aregiven the responsibility of enforcing the Acts under which they operate. ■

Council Report

Public Safety Message

RUFFNECK Heaters ofCalgary, Alberta, has volun-tarily launched a retrofit pro-

gram involving approximately11,000 XL4 hazardous-locationelectric air-heaters manufacturedprior to March 5, 1999, and soldthroughout Canada, the mainlandUnited States, Alaska, and overseas.The retrofit also includes heatersmanufactured under private label forModine Manufacturing Company(HEX4 series), Crouse-Hinds(EXH4 series), Stelpro Heating(XUH series), and Ouellet ElectricalHeating (OAX series).

These industrial heaters are pri-marily used to heat buildings in theenergy industry. Other users includepulp and paper mills, coal mines,hazardous-waste-storage facilitiesand waste-treatment plants, etc.

Since the introduction of theXL4 heater in 1993, three ruptureincidents have occurred. Propertydamage was minimal and therewere no injuries. Following inspec-

tions by a third-party engineeringfirm, and in-house testing at RUFF-NECK Heaters, it has been deter-mined that XL4 heat-exchangerscan develop internal gas pressurethat may lead to an eventual rupture.

RUFFNECK Heaters is veryproud of its exemplary safety recordand has worked diligently todevelop a retrofit to address thispotential problem. “While webelieve the potential for problemswith these heaters is very slight”,says Kevin Starozik, the companyPresident, “we have a commitmentto the total safety of our customersand our products.”

RUFFNECK Heaters is askinganyone who uses an XL4 heater, orits private label equivalent, to regis-ter with us immediately to receivedetails of the retrofit program.Please visit our website atwww.rhretrofit.com, or contact usby phone (403) 291-5488 or toll-free at 1-800-661-8561 U.S. &Canada. ■

RUFFNECK Heaters – XL4 Retrofit Programand use specific systems. A training

period within any institute is a real-ity and companies have to recognizethis. We will produce graduates whocan be trained quickly and effective-ly and retrained again if necessary.We are educating for a career, nota particular job.

On continuing education: I believethat education does not end afterstudents walk across the stage toreceive their degree. We must lookfor continuing education to maintainour skills. We are currently lookingat the idea of a post-baccalaureatediploma. The program would beinter-disciplinary with ten coursestaken from a number of availabledepartments. We now have a man-agement minor for our engineeringprogram where 18 credit hours ofmanagement courses in addition tothe core engineering requirementsearns a minor in management. Thishas led us to explore ideas such asjoint degrees in engineering andcomputer science, or civil engineer-ing and architecture. The latterwould take longer to complete, but

would allow a graduate to be regis-tered as both an architect and anengineer.

On the proposed engineeringbuilding refurbishment: We willneed considerable financial commit-ment from both local companies andpast graduates. I will be speaking toorganizations such as technical soci-eties and the chamber of commerceto get across the message of whatengineering is all about. Engineersare the enablers of civilization. Ifthere were no engineers we wouldnot enjoy the standard of living thatwe have today. This is why I takethe preparation of every generationof engineers so seriously.

On APEGM membership: At least65% of the APEGM members aregraduates of the University ofManitoba. We can be very proud ofthat. My plan is to build and main-tain that pride. We need assistancefrom the current membership toraise the profile of engineering atthe University of Manitoba. Weexpect the practitioners will give ustheir commitment to help us to theposition I know we can achieve –being the best Engineering Facultyin Canada. ■

New Dean of EngineeringContinued from page 4


National ScholarshipProgram Competition

MELOCHE MONNEX, which offers you the home andautomobile insurance program endorsed by theCanadian Council of Professional Engineers, is proudto be associated with this scholarship. Our supportof this program reflects our own commitment toprofessional development and continuous impro-vement, which helps us provide you with high qual-ity services.

Through the CCPE National ScholarshipProgram, MELOCHE MONNEX offers two scholar-ships annually in the amount of $7,500 each to pro-vide financial assistance to engineers returning touniversity for further study or research in a field otherthan engineering. Candidates must be accepted orregistered in a Faculty other than Engineering.

Deadline for all applicationsis April 1st, 2000.

For further details, contact your provincial or territorial professional engineering association/ordre, or theNational Scholarship Program, Canadian Council of Profes-sional Engineers, 401-116 Albert Street, Ottawa,Ontario K1P 5G3

Fax: (613) 230-5759E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ccpe.ca

2000Annual Reports

Between August 1, 1998, andJuly 31, 1999, this Associationreceived 502 applications. Of

these, 35 were referred to theAcademic Review Committee forthe assessment of the applicants’academic credentials, 155 wereenrolled as Engineers-in-Training(EITs), 120 were registered underthe Inter-Association MobilityAgreement, 16 were re-instated tomembership, and 90 EITs becameregistered as professional engineers.In addition, 70 non-residentCanadian and U. S. Engineers weregranted temporary licences to prac-tise engineering in Manitoba, andapplications for registration underthe grandparenting criteria werereceived from 14 geoscientists. Ontop of this, approximately 531 EITand corresponding supervisorreports were considered by ourincredibly hard-working ExperienceReview Committee.

A major undertaking for theAdmissions Department this yearwas the development of proceduresfor the registration of geoscientistsand geoscientists-in-training (GITs).(When the Engineering andGeoscientific Profession Act wasproclaimed on June 29, 1998, therewas absolutely nothing in place forthe registration of geoscientists -only the results of a survey, con-ducted in April, 1998, indicatingthat yes, indeed, the geologists andgeophysicists in Manitoba were infavour of professional registrationunder a combined Act with theengineers.)

The process started with therevision of the Code of Ethics toinclude geoscientists (approved bythe membership in November, fol-lowing the Annual GeneralMeeting). Next came the recruit-ment of geologist Ray Reichelt, P.Geo., to the Experience ReviewCommittee, and geologist NancyChow, Ph.D., and geophysicist IanFerguson, Ph. D., to the AcademicReview Committee. Then came thereplacement of the engineers’ pro-fessional practice seminar andexamination with the more genericnational Professional PracticeExamination, which all geoscientistapplicants would be required totake. “Grandparenting” criteria, to

provide an opportunity for all prac-tising geoscientists to become regis-tered without unnecessary hardship,were developed, as were applicationforms and associated informationpackages. These became availableto geoscientists in January, 1999.The first national ProfessionalPractice Examination was con-ducted in Manitoba in April, 1999.

Meanwhile, the Association’sdatabase had to be modified toaccommodate the incorporation ofgeoscientists into the system. Thiswas accomplished in April, and ourfirst two geoscientists were regis-tered in May. The geoscientistsalready registered as professionalengineers were also asked toexchange their P. Eng. seals and cer-tificates for P. Geo. seals and certifi-cates. Sixteen of them did so (thefirst, Dan Bosowec, was recognizedat the APEGM awards ceremonyduring National Engineering Week),and 11 others received P. Geo. sealsand certificates in addition to their P.Eng. credentials.

To enable us to enroll GITs, cri-teria for the academic qualificationof a “P. Geo.” had to be developed,and acceptable geoscientific workexperience had to be defined. Whilethe experience requirement wasquickly developed and agreed upon,the academic requirement wassomewhat more complicated.However, by the end of July, 1999,all of the i’s were dotted and the t’scrossed, and the geoscientists werenotified, early in August, that theAssociation is now accepting appli-cations for GIT enrollment.

On August 9, the GeoscientistGrandparenting Task Force (GGTF)met for the first time, and consid-ered eight applications for registra-tion (two had previously beenapproved by the RegistrationCommittee, based on registration asprofessional geoscientists with otherAssociations). Two of the first-timeapplicants were registered in

Director ofAdmissions’ ReportS.M. Matile

Continued on page 10

August, and the other six were approved for reg-istration subject to their successful completion ofthe Professional Practice Examination.

By the end of August, 14 months after theproclamation of the Engineering and GeoscientistProfessions Act, this Association had registeredfour new geoscientists. We expect next year’snumbers, given the expiry of the grandparentingcriteria on June 29, 2000, to be somewhat higher!

Another major undertaking this year was theimplementation of the acceptance of Pre-Graduation Work Experience. Across the country,engineering Associations have become receptiveto the concept of accepting exceptional work

experience obtained prior to graduation – typi-cally in co-op or intern program situations – aspart of the four-year work-experience require-ment. Given the mandatory nature of thisAssociation’s Pre-Registration Program, the intro-duction of the consideration of Pre-GraduationExperience was no small task. The program isnow in place, however, and full details and appli-cation forms are available at our web-site.

The Admissions workload continues to rise,with no corresponding increase in staff. An offi-cial reorganization took place this year, however,whereby more staff were allocated to the admis-sions process, and those already involved becamemore so. Donna Bilodeau, our very efficientAdmissions Co-Ordinator, now essentially runsthe Pre-Registration Program (which is, in itself,with over 500 EITs and their supervisors report-ing at least semi-annually, a full-time job). Shereceives the capable assistance of Lorraine Dupasand Kelly Birrell (and, during the summermonths, Jean McCorrister), all of whose versatil-ity and enthusiasm are very much appreciated.Joan McKinley, who serves as Secretary to theAcademic Review Committee, continues to pro-vide excellent service to both the Committee andour examination candidates. Thank you, all. ThisAssociation is fortunate to have such a loyal, ded-icated staff. ■


ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS

ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS ANNUAL REPORTS

Greetings from north of 55º !!

O ur past year up in the Thompson regionwas an exciting one despite challengingtimes with respect to the mining industry.

Our winter information session featuredspeaker Dave Pashniak, P.Eng. from ACRESInternational Ltd.

National Engineering week was celebrated atthe City Center Mall in Thompson with theSpaghetti Bridge Contest. The event was verywell attended with some excellent entries fromthe younger contestants.

A joint Thompson-Kelsey Chapter meetingheld in June proved to be very informative withan underground tour of the Konuto Lake Mine.

As many return from holidays this summer,we look forward to our upcoming year withrenewed enthusiasm.

On a closing note, we welcome theGeoscientists as the newest addition to theChapter and look forward to their contribution tothe Association. ■

Thompson ChapterAnnual ReportT.J. Nykoluk, Chair

Chapter ExecutiveK. Derksen, Vice-ChairD. Gauthier, SecretaryH. Bloomer, TreasurerG. Swaine,Past Chair

T he Kelsey Chapter has been recognized byAPEGM and APEGS (The Association ofEngineers and Geoscientists of Saskatche-

wan) as a joint chapter of the two Associationssince February 26, 1998. The Chapter serves FlinFlon and The Pas and the surrounding regions inManitoba and Saskatchewan including such cen-tres as Cranberry Portage, Denare Beach,Creighton, Cumberland House and Snow Lake.The Chapter is unique in Canada in representingtwo provincial associations and covering an areaspread out over several smaller communitieswithin a 2 hour drive from each other. This addsdiversity and strength to its membership.

This was our second year of activity as aChapter and we have been very fortunate to havea very active membership and enthusiastic execu-tive. We held nine monthly meetings with presen-tations covering a wide variety of engineering-and geoscientist-related topics:

■ September 21 Presidents’ Visit■ October 22 Construction Materials■ November 18 The Pas Bridge Repairs■ January 21 Wave Power Generation■ February 11 Continuing Education and

Professional Development■ March 18 New Ore Deposit (777) in

Flin Flon■ April 15 Papermill Presentation and

Tour ■ May 20 Ducks Unlimited Projects■ June 11/12 Konuto Mine Presentation

and Tour

We also had a successful display booth at theOtineka Mall in The Pas during EngineeringWeek from March 3 to 6. The school students andstaff enjoyed the “straw tower” contest.

Through the initiative of our Vice-Chair BrianKurczaba and others in Flin Flon, we now have alogo for our Chapter. The two major industries ofthis area – mining and forestry – are representedby the miner’s hammer as the upper right arm ofthe ‘K’, and the tree at the base. The ‘K’ leansforward demonstrating the progressive nature ofour membership.

As we look ahead to the upcoming year, we

have several significant initiatives and activitiesplanned. In September we have our annualPresidents’ Visit with representation from bothAPEGM and APEGS, and career symposiums forthe high schools in both The Pas and Flin Flon.During the year, we intend to respond to therequest from the Kelsey School Division andbecome involved in presentations and activities inthe local schools in The Pas. This will involvevolunteer training of several interested membersthrough Innovators in the Schools. Other activi-ties will include our Chapter AGM with the elec-tion of the new Executive, presentation meetingsthroughout the year, and the Engineering Weekdisplay booth and contests.

We now have a web page on the internet forimproved communication with our membershipas well as our parent and partnering organiza-tions. From our web page at www.apegs.sk.ca/kelsey which can be accessed from links fromAPEGM or APEGS websites, individuals can bekept abreast of our upcoming activities and canfind out who to contact for further information onour Chapter. We appreciate the efforts of AllanMorrison, P. Eng., in our Chapter, and Deb Kuzekof APEGS in making this happen. We encourageyou to check us out!

We are very appreciative of the time andenergy devoted to our Chapter and want to thankeach of the executive members, members, guestspeakers, and others who have made this year anenjoyable and successful year. We anticipateanother exciting year ahead of us as we reach theyear 2000. ■

The Kelsey Chapter

D. Harfield, Chair

Chapter ExecutiveJ.M. MacLeod,

Past Chair, APEGMCouncillor

B.E. Kurczaba, Vice-Chair

J.I. Reagan, SecretaryT.P. Meier, TreasurerJ.E. Hewitt,

Member-at-LargeK.M. Pawliuk, Member-at-LargeP.G. Rowbotham, Member-at-LargeF.R. Ara, Member-at-Large

Director of Admissions’ ReportContinued from page 9

OCTOBER 1999 THE KEYSTONE PROFESSIONAL

COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMITTEE REPORTS


D uring the past year, the ProfessionalDevelopment Committee has primarilybeen involved with the following tasks:

■ Organizing PD Breakfast Meetings

■ Organizing a Management Seminar

■ Liaison with the Member Competence TaskForce

■ Participation in the Annual General Meeting(AGM) Professional Development Task Force

■ PDNETWORK

The PD breakfasts continued this year and thefollowing topics were presented by various

speakers:

■ Information Session on MPDP

■ Information Session on the PD Program at theAGM

■ Criteria for Evaluation of Flood ControlMeasures: Red River Flood of 1997 CaseStudy – Dr. S. Simonovic, P.Eng.

■ Meeting the Millennium Challenge – C. McMichael and K. Mason, Government ofManitoba

■ (What) If It (Eastern Ice Storm) HappensHere? – V. Steciuk, P.Eng., E. Tymofichuk,P.Eng.

■ Performance Contracting – R. McDowall,P.Eng.

■ Effects of Kyoto Declaration on EnergyGeneration/Manufacturing – Dr. B. Glanville,B. Hamlin, P.Eng.

■ Technical Writing – Get to the Point – R. Blicq

Planning is underway for several breakfastmeetings this fall. Suggestions for topics forfuture PD Breakfast presentations are always welcome and may be made to any PD Committeemember or the APEGM office.

A Management Seminar was held in January1999 on the broad topic of Ethics andProfessionalism in Today’s CompetitiveEnvironment. There were ten speakers coveringtopics including “Confidentiality Agreements andTrade Secrets”, “Copyright - What Does It

Protect?”, “Searching Patent Data Bases andReading Patents With a View To AvoidInfringement”, “Ethics and Professionalism” and“Code of Ethics for Engineers”, “Ethics inMining and Mineral Exploration: TheGeoscience Challenge”.

The keynote lecture was given by Mr. RogerBoisjoly, P.E., Ethics Lecturer and ForensicEngineer. The title of Mr. Boisjoly’s talk was“The Focus on Excessive Profits versusProfessionalism, Ethics and Safe QualityProducts”.

The PD Committee has been represented byWally Jackson on the Member Competence TaskForce, which was formed by the Council follow-ing the AGM last year.

The PD Committee also actively participatedin developing and organizing a PD session at the1999 AGM through the Annual General MeetingProfessional Development Task Force.

The PDNETWORK was an initiative of thePD Committee to work with other technical andmanagement organizations to publicize each others’ PD activities and to offer as wide range of PD opportunities as possible to each others’members. The PDNETWORK now has beenimplemented and maintained by staff at APEGM, and is accessible through the APEGMweb page.

The committee wishes to recognize and thankShirley Matile, P. Eng., Ken Buhr, P. Eng., andLorraine Dupas for their on-going support andassistance. ■

ProfessionalDevelopment CommitteeH.M. Turanli, Chair

MembersB. G. BettessR.J. BruceB.D. CleggT.J. CornellV.L. DuttonG.D. HamiltonW.T. JacksonG. KibriaD.B. McKibbinM.B. TokarzE. Eddy (Liaison Councilor)

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 credentials of candidates andrelies on recommendations from the AcademicReview Committee, the Experience ReviewCommittee, and Association staff in making deci-sions. Additional responsibilities of theCommittee include the consideration of appealsagainst decisions of the other Committees and the

staff, and the review of registration-related issuesand provision of recommendations respecting thesame to the Admissions Board, the ExecutiveDirector, and Council.

The Registration Committee was, once again,very busy during 1998-99. In this period, theCommittee held 12 regular meetings and one special meeting. Insofar as statistics are con-cerned, during this past year 155 EITs wereenrolled, 120 members were registered under theMobility Agreement, 90 members were registeredfor the first time, 70 licenses were issued for prac-tice, 16 reinstatements were approved and 21Academic Review Committee recommendationswere verified. Nine applications were reviewedand not approved by the Committee for a varietyof reasons. Council heard one appeal against adecision of the Registration Committee respectinga reinstatement request. Council denied theappeal.

During the past year, the Committee has con-tinued to work closely with the Academic ReviewCommittee, the Experience Review Committee,the staff, and Council to ensure that registrationprocedures are appropriate. In several cases, rec-ommendations were made to Council respectingproposed changes to the Manual of Admissionsand/or the Committee Terms of Reference. It isintended that an Operations Manual be developed

to assist the Committee in the carrying out of itsduties. As an initial step, the Committee drafted arecommended procedure for the hearing ofappeals. The Admissions Board subsequentlyapproved the procedure.

In addition to its baseline work, the Regis-tration Committee also reviewed and made rec-ommendations concerning changes in thereinstatement requirements, the CCPE proposalfor the consideration of pre-graduation experi-ence, the handling of applicants for registrationhaving transgressions with other associations, anddraft recommendations from the CanadianGeoscience Standards Board to the AdmissionsBoard or Council. The Committee, along with thestaff, the Experience Review Committee and theAcademic Review Committee, spent considerabletime reviewing procedures for the registration ofgeoscientists in the Association. This includedgrandparenting criteria, work experience require-ments, and academic qualification needs. Variousmiscellaneous tasks were also undertaken.

The Committee membership has not changedover the past year. The Chair has appreciated theirongoing enthusiasm and dedication. The Com-mittee wishes to recognize and thank ShirleyMatile, P.Eng., Donna Bilodeau and Dave Ennis,P.Eng., for their ongoing support and assistancewhich has, once again, proven to be invaluable. ■

Registration CommitteeK.J.T. Kjartanson, Chair

MembersJ.W. CampbellW.R. NewtonD.G. OsmanD.I. WaldmanC.S. Roberts

(Liaison Councillor)




O nce again, the Committee has been a hard-working group with each member con-tributing written articles and valuable

suggestions and observations. Adding to the plea-sure of working with such a group is the opportu-nity to see the fruit of our labours every twomonths.

The two most significant decisions over thelast year were a name change and the acceptanceof paid advertising. The name change wasrequired when the new Engineering and Geo-science Professions Act was passed by theProvincial Legislature. No longer could thenewsletter be called The Manitoba ProfessionalEngineer as the title needed to reflect the com-

pany of geoscientists who would soon be joiningthe Association. Council authorized theCommittee to develop a new name. TheCommittee chose The Keystone Professional onthe basis that it maintains the term “Professional”while indirectly alluding to the two professionsand the Province in the term “Keystone”.

Many Associations now support paid advertis-ing in their publications. Certainly, the Committeediscussion on the topic did not produce the kindof concerned language that one would have heardten or twenty years ago. Times have, indeed,changed.

We saw more written responses to articlesfrom members than in recent years, notably withrespect to the Software Engineering issue atMemorial University and the proposed Manda-tory Professional Development Program (MPDP).This is always heart-warming to the Committeebecause it demonstrates that the newsletter is ful-filling more than its mandate of recordingAssociation activities, but that members are actu-ally taking the time out of their busy schedules toread it. We look forward to more memberactivism through the pages of The KeystoneProfessional in the years ahead.

I wish to thank every member of the Commit-tee, the APEGM staff, and John Toyne (layoutartist) for dedication to the task of producing a bi-monthly publication and their patience with theChair, a position I will have vacated by the timethis issue is mailed. To Arthur Kempan, my suc-cessor, I extend my best wishes.Enjoy. ■

Communications CommitteeB. Stimpson, Chair

MembersM.E. BarilJ.A. BlatzJ.W. BoganV.L. DuttonA.N. KempanM.W. MorrisonJ.E. NordstromL. Dupas, APEGM StaffS.M. Matile, APEGMStaff

Layout: J. Toyne at Design Emporium

T he Experience Review Committee assessesthe experience of Engineers-In-Training(EIT) and Geoscientists-In-Training (GIT)

and determines when they have sufficient experi-ence to register. EITs and GITs are required tosubmit semi-annual accounts of their work expe-rience, professional development, and profes-sional service. A committee member will ensurethat work experience is of an appropriate natureand that professional development and profes-sional service requirements are met. Committeemembers’ recommendations are reported at theCommittee’s monthly meeting. Committee mem-bers can have as many as 12 files to review dur-ing a month.

The ERC is currently working on two initia-tives: the incorporation of GITs into the pre-regis-tration program and a re-examination of ourpractices and procedures. The latter was broughtabout by the Admissions Board’s review of theManual of Admissions, which is the documentthat governs the pre-registration program. Thecommittee thought that it would be appropriate toreview our methods and outcomes to determinewhat is absolutely necessary in the pre-registra-tion program and what could be improved or eveneliminated. To that end we held a series of meet-ings where Committee members, formerCommittee members, and selected EITs examinedthe positive and negative features of the pre-regis-tration program. Bob Partridge, who is one of theoriginal members of the ERC, led these sessions.

During the past year, Ralph Eschenweckerresigned from the Committee and Dan McInnistook a leave of absence. Joining the committeewere Ray Reichelt and Stirling Walkes. BobPartridge, who is a past member of this commit-tee, is filling in for Dan while he is on leave. ■

Experience Review CommitteeA.D. Silk, Chair

MembersD.T. AndersonC.R. BouskillD.S. JayasJ.D.G. McInnisA.J. PollardR.J. PartridgeR. ReicheltP. StanusC.L. StewartC.D. TorpeyV.S. WalkesM.E. Wilkins

S.M. Matile, APEGM StaffD.M. Bilodeau, APEGM Staff

T he Emerging Technologies (ET) Committeehas a mandate to keep Council and mem-bers informed of scientific research, techno-

logical development, and innovation in Manitobaand Canada, and to identify the implications ofthese activities for Association members and thepublic.

The ET Committee met five times during thepast year. One of the Committee’s activities is tohost luncheon meetings on topics related toresearch and development either in Manitoba orhaving direct impact on the Engineering

Profession in Manitoba. Presentations are usuallyvideo-taped, and copies of the tapes in VHS for-mat are available at the Association office forloan to members. This year, the committee hostedone luncheon presentation on the NSERCIndustrial Research Chair in InfrastructureRenewal at the University of Manitoba, byProfessor Dimos Polyzois.

The ET Committee also regularly publishesarticles related to research and development andinnovation in the Keystone Professional. Thisyear the committee published one such article, areview of the book titled, “TechnologicalEntrepreneurship and Engineering in Canada”.

This year, in response to an appeal from theMeetings Committee and President Britton toprovide help in organizing the ProfessionalDevelopment Conference for the 1999 AnnualGeneral Meeting, two ET Committee membersjoined a task group that was formed for this pur-pose. Plans for the conference are now beingfinalized.

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, Kelly Birrell and other APEGMstaff for all their support during the year. ■

Emerging TechnologiesCommitteeJ.C. Bégin, Chair

MembersA.S. ChadhaD.J. FedirchukR.J. HamlinR. KroekerE.E. LachR. MacDonaldE.A. SpeersD.R. StrangJ.B. ThorsteinssonD.S. Yarko




T he Investigation Committee referred threecases to the Discipline Committee, one orig-inating in 1998, the other two in 1999. Two

cases were heard in 1999, the third is pending.

A panel made up of members of theCommittee heard the first case early in 1999. Theresults of the panel’s decision and the penaltyimposed cannot be reported because the case hasbeen appealed to the Council. Council hears theappeal and makes a finding – as provided for inthe Act. The decision has not been made public atthe time of this report. When resolved, a sum-mary will be reported to the membership.

The second case was heard more recently by asecond panel of Committee members. The panel’sdecision was reported to the membership in theApril issue of The Manitoba ProfessionalEngineer. An appeal was not made.

A panel is being formed to hear the third case.

There were two other cases for which theDiscipline Committee was asked to appoint aCommittee member to consult with the Investiga-tion Committee on penalties proposed to belevied against a member. One was resolved andthe other was referred to the Discipline Commit-tee for the hearing that is now in progress.

The Discipline Committee is concerned thatits presence might be a deterrent to the taking ofrisk. On the contrary, members are encouraged totake risks founded upon their reasonably thor-ough research of the engineering problems theyare asked to resolve – a recognition that no riskequates to no progress. The Discipline Committeeis not here to deal with risk-taking but it is con-cerned with negligence arising from too little orno research, breaches of ethics (read: commonsense), and unsafe practice.

To recap the workings of the DisciplineCommittee, the following is a repeat of a portionof last year’s report:

The Discipline Committee consists of mem-bers representing various disciplines who areprepared to serve on a disciplinary panel whencalled upon.

A disciplinary panel compares to a judge in a

court of law. It has most of the powers of acourt including the power to subpoena wit-nesses and evidence.

Typically, each case is heard by a selectedpanel of two or more members and a lay per-son (a recent requirement under the new Act).The panel has its own legal counsel to adviseon procedure.

The Investigation Committee lays the chargeand, through its legal counsel and witnesses,presents oral and documentary evidence to thepanel.

The investigated member, usually representedby legal counsel, responds to the charge withcountering documentary evidence and the tes-timony of witnesses.

The hearing might take several days afterwhich the panel studies the evidence andmakes its judgement.

Penalties, if any, range from a reprimand torestricted or total suspension of practice. Allor some of the costs may be included in thepenalty.

The hearing is conducted in a formal mannerthat follows many of the rules of court proce-dure such as prior disclosure of documentaryevidence, examination and cross-examinationof witnesses, and the recording of oral testi-mony.

The panel must ensure and uphold the obliga-tions of a court of law, including:

the investigated person’s right to a fair andimpartial trial,

a high standard of impartiality, and a

judgement of the facts based on a standard ofproof commensurate with the charge.

On behalf of our Association I wish to thankmembers of the Committee who gave their timeand attention to fair consideration of the profes-sional and ethical problems upon which they wereasked to rule. The Committee is also thankful tothe lawyers who advised each of the parties.

Staff support was thorough and very muchappreciated by the Committee. ■

Discipline CommitteeR.E. Scouten, Chair

MembersL.R. FerchoffG.L. GreasleyR.A. KaneD.M. KilgourB.R. KingW.C. LeeA.M. LohseP.J. MignaccaG.A. MorrisD.G. OsmanL.J. PennerD.N. Spangelo

T he purpose of the Practice StandardsCommittee is to ensure that membership ofAPEGM is provided with information on

current best practices of engineering.

The following standards are currently beingdeveloped:

General Practice Standards:

■ Guidelines for the Development ofMechanical and Electrical Services forBuildings

■ General Review of Construction

■ Guideline on Commissioning

■ Guideline for the Provision of Engineeringand Geoscientific Services

■ Guideline on Duty to Report

■ Guidelines for Technical Review ofEngineering and Geoscientific Work

■ Guidelines on Provision of Design-BuildServices

■ Standards Required under the Report on theBuilding Envelope

■ Land Surveyors – Manual of Good Practice

Updates to current standards:

■ Guide to the Engagement of the ConsultingProfessional Engineer

■ Guide to the Ethical Use of the Seal (includingelectronic use of the seal)

The Committee has met seven times since itsinaugural meeting in November of 1998.Activities included determining which practiceswere in need of guidelines or standards, selectingchairpersons for each topic area, obtaining volun-teers to serve on the sub-committees, and devel-oping a work plan.

Fortunately, guidelines in many of these topicareas had been developed by other Associations,such as APEGGA and PEO, and these are beingreviewed by the sub-committees as a base fromwhich to create a document which will meet ourneeds. Reasonable progress is being made. It isexpected that the first of these new standards andguidelines will be reviewed by the Committeethis Fall, and, following approval by Council, willbe available both in print form and on theAssociation’s web site.

It has been a real pleasure to be part of thisdedicated group of volunteers. I thank them fortheir hard work and support. And of course, DaveEnnis and the staff continue to be a wealth ofinformation and assistance to the Committee, forwhich we express our sincere appreciation. ■

Practice StandardsCommitteeF.L. Nicholson, Chair

MembersM.S. AndersonK.G. BoltonI.R. DewarE. FerbersM.J. FryeE.I. LexierR.N. McPhailD.G. MulderR.H. PayneB.J. RossenT.L. StrattonJ.A. ThomsonD.I. WaldmanE. Weiszmann



T he Investigation Committee is involved inthe investigation of complaints and concernsreceived from both the public and members

of the Association, as well as to consider ques-tions on professional conduct received fromAssociation members. The actions of the commit-tee are conducted under the authority of Part 9 ofthe Act and guided by By-Law 43, the Code ofEthics, and the Mission Statement of theAssociation:

“To serve and protect the public interest bygoverning and advancing the practice ofengineering in accordance with theEngineering Profession Act of Manitoba.”

In the last year the committee held ten meet-ings. In addition, numerous sub-committee meet-ings were held to review the various complaints,concerns and questions received. A total of 31files were reviewed; of these, thirteen were car-ried over from the previous year, 18 were newcomplaints and concerns. The present status ofthese files are eight are ongoing, 16 were dis-missed, one formal caution was issued, one 30-day suspension was issued with the writtenconsent of the member, three were referred to theDiscipline Committee, and two involvedresponses to questions submitted by members.

Of the Complaints/Questions received:

■ 8 resulted from situations where an engineerwas concerned with the action of anotherengineer.

■ 23 complaints resulted from concerns of vari-ous agencies and individuals on the conduct ofengineers, including 4 which involved designand/or inspection of residences.

The committee is at present examining theMediation process with the thought that this pro-cess might, in some cases, be more expedientthan a formal investigation, especially in disputesbetween members.

Support staff, as in the past, has providedenthusiastic and dedicated service, before, duringand after normal working hours. The assistance ofKelly Birrell, Charlie Bouskill, and Dave Ennisallowed the Committee to function in an effec-tive, efficient manner. ■

Investigation CommitteeW.M.A. McDonald, Chair

MembersD.E. CrossT.H. GillmanD.G. HodgkinsonR.P. HoemsenR.A. JohnsonS.I. KalichukE.I. LexierW.J. McCullochJ.R. McDougallI.H. McKayJ.A. TerrisS.L. UrselA.E. Ball (Liason Councillor)

T he mandate of the Women in EngineeringAdvisory Committee (WEAC) is to addressissues involving the concerns of women in

engineering so as to enable their full participationin the profession and in Association activities.The majority of WEAC’s activities in 1998-99focused on the challenges associated with the bal-ancing of career and family.

Recognizing the many challenges associatedwith balancing career and family, work on a flexi-ble workplace document was initiated under for-mer WEAC Chair Kelly Olischefski. The intentwas to prepare a document that could serve as a

reference tool for professional engineers and theiremployers when considering flexible workplacearrangements. Under Brenda Danielson’s direc-tion this document has been completed. Thedocument focuses on seven practical flexibleworking arrangements: flexible-hours, job-shar-ing, permanent part-time work, telecommuting, v-time, on-site day care, and phased retirement.Plans are underway to present the document in aserialized form in future issues of The KeystoneProfessional.

The APEGM provided financial support to theExploring Engineering Conference organized bythe University of Manitoba Faculty of Engineer-ing. WEAC members were involved as presentersand workshop leaders at this conference.

Meaghan O’Laughlin represented WEAC onthe Canadian Coalition for Women in Engineer-ing, Science, and Technology (CCWEST).CCWEST efforts in 1998-99 focused on the orga-nization of New Frontiers, New Traditions – aNational Conference for the advancement ofwomen in engineering, science, and technology tobe held in St. John’s in July, 2000.

I would like to take this opportunity to thankall committee members, Shirley Matile, DaveEnnis, and the APEGM office staff for their assis-tance throughout the year. I also welcome newcommittee member Robin Hutchinson. ■

Women in EngineeringAdvisory Committee E.S. Swatek, Chair

MembersB.A.K. DanielsonC.E. GeddertR. HutchinsonH.D. McKibbinM.S. O’LaughlinK.F. Olischefski


T his year marked a significant shift of focusfor the Legislation Committee. With thenew Act passed last year, the Committee has

been busy this year rewriting the By-lawsrequired by this new Act. This has required acomplete rewrite of the existing By-laws. Boththe format and wording have been changed fromthe existing By-laws for consistency with the newAct.

Members have worked rewriting numerouscomponents of the By-laws while staff, particu-larly Dave Ennis, has worked on componentsrelated to administrative details. Issues and con-cerns with the existing By-laws that have beenraised over the years have also been addressed atthis time.

It is the Committee’s intent to have membersvote on these new By-laws this fall. Details willfollow for your review.

I would like to thank all Legislation Commit-tee members, both present and past members, as well as Dave Ennis and other staff, for theircontributions. ■

Legislation Committee D.N. Spangelo, Chair

MembersR.M. GordonJ.S. HicksR.A. JohnsonJ.M. MacLeodJ.E. ReimerP.V. RemillardD.G. FordS.A. MaileyD.A. Ennis, APEGM StaffS.M. Matile, APEGM Staff

APEGM is the leader and a

facilitator of the process that

ensures excellence in

engineering, geoscience and

applied technology

for the public of Manitoba.

A P E G M V I S I O N

S afety in the practice of engineering beginswith good design and thoughtful considera-tion of all aspects, both present and future.

Of equal importance is verification by the engi-neer of the proper application of his/her design inthe completed work.

Issues that members bring to the Safety inEngineering Practice Committee most often arisebecause some aspects of design or verification areeither being overlooked or ignored. Often, cir-cumstances have arisen that hindered these pro-cesses.

The full committee generally refers technicalconsideration of an issue to a subcommittee com-prised of committee members and experts fromthe membership at large. The following will high-light several of the issues that have come beforethe committee during this past year.

The Engineer and the Design-BuildContract

Engineers who provide services to design buildcontractors find themselves facing a number ofunique problems. Designs can suffer when engi-neers are engaged for specific disciplines but noone is engaged to provide the overall coordinationof the design. In this way, design issues can bemissed and assumptions made between the disci-plines can result in conflicts as well as the poten-tial for hazards or financial loss to the ultimateowners.

Conflicts of interest can arise when engineersare asked to certify payments from the owners totheir clients whose work they are obliged toinspect. Conflict of interest also occurs where thecost implications of a design result in pressurefrom the client to take a cheaper but perhaps lessdesirable solution.

While there are many examples of successfuldesign-build projects, engineers must be aware ofthe pitfalls and be prepared to take tough standswhere necessary.

The committee has recommended that thisissue be referred to the Practice StandardsCommittee to prepare a guideline for membersthat will be useful in setting the ground rules atthe beginning of a contract.

Flood-Protection Dikes

Following the “Flood of the Century”, there hasbeen a considerable amount of activity in thedesign and construction of structures that will pre-vent future flood losses.

Unique designs are being considered for“assembly dikes” that can be used to protect indi-vidual property owners by assembling just priorto a flood and then dismantling once the danger isover. These structures are useful where the weightof permanent dikes can result in riverbank insta-

bility and where owners simply do not want tohave their views obstructed by a permanent earthdike.




Safety in EngineeringPractice CommitteeF.A. Roberts, Chair

MembersM.S. AndersonD.N. BurmeyD.E. CrossA.O. DyregrovM.J. FryeB.P. GojkovicR.E. GottfredW.T. JacksonJ.S. SagooP.T. SimsJ.V. Weiszmann

T The inaugural meeting of the Environmentaland Sustainable Development Committee(ESDC) was held on June 17, 1998, and

subsequent to that, six additional meetings up toJune 2, 1999, have been held.

The activities of the Committee haveincluded:

■ Updating the APEGM Sustainable Develop-ment Policy to reflect the membership of thegeoscientists in our Association.

■ A brief on the Kyoto Protocol was preparedby Jean Van Dusen for reference by RonBritton to CCPE Council.

■ An article entitled “The Undergraduate Optionin Environmental Engineering is Growing”was prepared for the April 1999 issue of TheManitoba Professional Engineer by DarylMcCartney.

■ An article entitled “The Kyoto Protocol –Opportunities, Challenges and Obligations”was prepared by Jean Van Dusen for theAugust, 1999, issue of The KeystoneProfessional.

■ Articles have been prepared by GeorgeRempel and Paul Janzen for subsequent issuesof The Keystone Professional.

■ George Rempel represents APEGM on theSustainable Development AwardsIndependent Evaluation Committee and theScholarship Awards Committee, both beingsub-committees of The Manitoba RoundTable.

The Committee will continue to monitor envi-ronmental and sustainable-development issuesand report to the Issues Awareness Board andAPEGM membership as appropriate. Commentsfrom the membership are welcome so that wemay serve you better. ■

Environment andSustainableDevelopment CommitteeC.E. Anderson, Chair

MembersP. JanzenD.M. McCartneyD.G. OsmanG. Rempel, Vice-ChairL.J. Van DusenK.A. Buhr,

APEGM Staff

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 the Committee organized the

following activities:

■ Golf tournament at Teulon on September 9,1998, using an individual ball format.

■ Curling bonspiel at the Fort Garry CurlingClub on November 17, 1998. The day waspacked with fun and the Committee wouldlike to see an increase in attendance in thefuture.

■ Golf tournament at Quarry Oaks on June 2,1999, using a best-ball format. Thank you toall organizations that sponsored holes anddonated prizes. Your continuing support isgreatly appreciated.

In the next year the Committee plans on orga-nizing a fall golf tournament, curling bonspiel,pool tournament, and a spring golf tournament.Please feel free to contact members of theCommittee to voice concerns of the current activ-ities and to discuss possible new activities.

The Chair thanks all Committee members andwould also like to welcome Jamie Pereira to thecommittee. ■

Sports and SocialCommitteeC.N. Perrett, Chair

MembersJ.F. Lavergne

(Vice Chair)B.W. Biglow

(Past Chair)M.E. Baril (Scribe)H.F. LoboJ. Pereira

Continued on page 17

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’sannual Evening of Recognition, convened inMarch, 1999, was very successful. There werethree awards presented. Dr. John (Jay) Doering, P.Eng., Department of Civil and GeologicalEngineering, University of Manitoba, receivedthe Early Achievement Award, and Dr. HowardC. Card, P.Eng., Department of Electrical andComputer Engineering, University of Manitoba,received the Merit Award. The Certificate ofEngineering Achievement Award went toInfoMagnetics Technologies Corporation(received by Dr. Moe Barakat, P. Eng.) andProfessor Lot Shafai, P. Eng., Department ofElectrical & Computer Engineering, University ofManitoba, and Mr. G. S. Pizey, P. Eng., DesignEngineer, Industrial Technology Centre,

Winnipeg. There was a new award category forthe Committee to consider this past year. TheLeadership Award is intended to recognize thoseachievements where a person or group of personsinitiated a project or undertaking and had theinvolvement of professional engineers thereafter.The first Leadership Award was presented to Mr.Ernest Armitt for the Pisew Falls “Rotary”Bridge.

The Awards Committee advises that there willbe two award recipients at the next Evening ofRecognition in the fall. In addition to the aboveawards already granted this year, Council has,upon the recommendation of the AwardsCommittee, resolved to award the OutstandingService Award to Ms Cathy Stewart, P. Eng. ofInco and the Honorary Life Membership Awardto Mr. Walter Saltzberg, P. Eng. The AwardsCommittee has had the good fortune of having avery good slate of candidates for these awardsand wishes to advise the membership that we arealways looking for nominations. The above recip-ients are considered to be very deserving of theawards for their considerable contribution to theAPEGM. The public’s image of the engineers ofManitoba and Canada has been greatly enhancedby these individuals.

We are looking for your input to this processto ensure all deserving candidates are given con-sideration. Please contribute to the process bynominating a fellow professional or non-profes-sional for any of the appropriate awards thatAPEGM or CCPE has to recognize the effortsand achievements of its members. It is importantthat the membership continue to contribute to theprocess.

I would like to thank Joan McKinley and allthe Award Committee members for their signifi-

cant efforts over the last year. It has been a plea-sure working with you. I wish to thank LawrenceFerchoff, P. Eng., Nadia Maksymiw, P. Eng., andCathy Stewart, P. Eng., for their significant contri-butions over the last few years. Additionally, Iwould like to welcome new members JayDoering, P. Eng., Peter Washchyshyn, P. Eng.,and the first EIT, Clifford Lichkowski. ■



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

Committee conducted its annual employer salarysurvey this spring. In addition, an employee sur-vey was completed in May. A report on theresults was distributed with the summer edition ofThe Keystone Professional.

This year, for our employee survey, wereceived 544 responses, which is a 5% increase inthe number of responses from last year. Themembers reported an average increase of 5% inbase salary for the year ending April 1st, 1999.The median salary increase was 2.5%. In terms ofjob function, the three largest categories wereManagement, Design Engineering, andConsulting. The detailed report is also available atour website (www.apegm.mb.ca). It has links tomembership salary information from BritishColumbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

The committee is currently revising theAPEGM Job Classification Rating Guide to sim-plify the rating process and include theGeoscientist/Geologist job functions in the com-parative job descriptions. The committee is alsoreviewing the use of our website in the collectingand disseminating of the survey information.

Thank you to the members who completedour survey and a special thanks to those employ-ers who provided their corporate salary data to thecommittee. Many thanks to the committee mem-bers for their efforts this year and to Dave Ennisand Joan McKinley for their continued support.Finally, a special thanks to Ken Buhr for theexcellent presentation of the survey informationat our website. ■

Salary Research Committee E.G. Parker, Chair

MembersW.B. ToddW. CzyrnyjG. NorbergI. MikawozA.M. MianD.D. Mann

Awards CommitteeD.G. Osman, Chair

MembersM.A. BarakatJ.R.C. DoeringE.E. LachC.L. LichkowskiS.H. RizkallaC.V. ThioP. Washchyshyn


T his was the first year of operation for theIssues Awareness Board (IAB). The pur-pose of the IAB is to receive reports from

six APEGM committees and report on the leadingissues to Council. A requirement of the IAB isthat the Chair of the Board must be a member ofthe APEGM Council.

The IAB met for approximately two hours onthe following dates: November 18, 1998, January

13, 1999, March 17, 1999, May 19, 1999 andSeptember 1, 1999.

A summary of the topics presented to the IABwill not be presented here as these issues are cov-ered under the respective committee submissions.Exceptions are:

■ consideration of a survey of the range ofemployment conditions for professional engi-neers across Canada. It was noted that, withfew exceptions, professional engineers inManitoba and other provinces are excludedfrom the equivalent of the EmploymentStandards Act. It was concluded that, for thetime being at least, APEGM should not take aposition in the matter;

■ a recommendation to the Council that theAssociation not make a presentation to theCapital Region Review Board of the Provinceof Manitoba; and

■ a preliminary review of a very interesting sur-vey of graduates of the Faculty of Engineeringat the University of Manitoba conducted aspart of the Association’s University liaisonactivities. ■

Issues Awareness BoardR.N. Matthews, Chair

MembersC.E. AndersonM.S. AndersonJ.C. BeginM.G. BrittonB.A.K. DanielsonD.N. SpangeloP. WashchyshynD.A. Ennis,

APEGM Staff

T he Nominating Committee continued itstask under the reorganization of committeesunder ORAP and commenced last year

under the very capable chairmanship of J.M.Symonds. Two of the members are elected fromthe floor at the Annual General Meeting. Lastyear’s committee broke ground in the new pro-cess that greatly assisted the current committee infulfilling its task. However, there are still growingpains that will need to be addressed over the yearsto come.

Under the committee structure, over 200 vol-unteers are required to fill the committees,thereby fulfilling the mandate of APEGM. Thecurrent list of APEGM serving volunteers is inthe order of 190 with a waiting list of some 60.The waiting list is made up of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists, and Engineers- andGeoscientists-in-Training, who have indicated

their interest in committees and, as soon as vacan-cies exist, will be nominated to committees ofinterest.

The first committee meeting of the year wason November 23, 1998, followed by six meetingsleading up to the AGM. Seven very capable nom-inees for four vacant Council positions have beennominated. Committee rosters, in accordancewith ORAP have been filled. As mentionedabove, APEGM is fortunate to have waiting listsof volunteers eager to serve on many committees.

The new Act continues to provide for theappointment of two lay-councillors. Similarly,certain committees require members from thegeneral public to serve. To assist, and in the inter-est of fostering cooperation with other associa-tions, we have notified other associations such asthe College of Physicians and Surgeons and theManitoba Association of Optometrists, invitingthem to nominate members for consideration forappointment to our Council and committees. Inthe same invitation, we have offered to recipro-cate by nominating APEGM members to theircommittees. We have had favourable responsefrom a number of associations that will requirefollow-up in the new year.

The strength of our Association is very depen-dent on the quality and dedication of membersand members-in-training serving on the Counciland the various committees of the Association.The members of the Nominating Committee haveworked diligently, focussing on the role that eachnominee must play in the well-being of theAssociation. ■

Nominating CommitteeP. Washchyshyn, Chair

MembersM.G. BrittonV.M. DeWieleJ.R. HosangW.M.A. McDonaldA.D. SilkC.L. StewartJ.M. SymondsH.M. Turanli




T his was the first year of operation of theAdmissions Board – a Board reporting toDave Ennis as Registrar. The Board was

established to deal with broad registration issuesand detailed registration policies (Council sets theover-arching Registration Policy) and to provide aforum for co-ordination of the committeesinvolved in the registration process.

The Board met five times in the last year anddealt with a range of important issues, including:

■ registration of geoscientists, including grand-parenting of geoscientists,

■ registration-related appeal processes,

■ professional practice seminar/examinations,

■ changes to the policies and procedures of theExperience Review, Academic Review, andRegistration Committees,

■ the use of lay members on registration-relatedcommittees,

■ recommendations from CCPE on internationalagreements.

To ensure a fair and open appeals process, theBoard does not discuss specific registration cases.As the membership list indicates, the members ofthe Board include the Chairs of the three registra-tion-related Committees and two members ofCouncil. At this time, both Councillors are alsolay representatives. It is intended that there willalways be at least one lay member on the Board.

I would like to thank the Board members fortheir contributions. ■

Admissions BoardD.G. Chapman Chair

MembersE. Eddy

(Liaison Councillor)K.J.T. KjartansonS. M. Matile

(Secretary)A.D. Silk

(Vice-chair)B. Thomson

(Liaison Councillor)

While offering attractive solutions to propertyowners, there are many dangers that may onlybecome evident at the peak of a flood, possiblylong after a designer’s involvement has ceased.The availability of the proper materials and fas-teners and the skill of the installer can mean thedifference between a structure that performs asdesigned and one that will fail under the weightof rising waters.

Because of the increased interest in this typeof dike, engineers are being asked to undertakethese designs, often as a new venture. The SEPCrecently issued a bulletin warning members of theimportant design issues that must be considered.The bulletin cautions that all such designs shouldinclude a multidisciplinary approach with ageotechnical study, hydrological design to con-sider the effects of water and ice momentum, aswell as the structural design. The committeewould like to emphasize that without this multi-disciplinary approach, failures may occur result-ing in loss of life and property.

Snow Removal from Building Roofs

The SEPC has reported to members on the impactof the rather significant changes recently made tothe National Building Code when calculatingsnow loads on large roofs. This past year we haveissued a bulletin to members outlining problemsthat must be considered when preparing proce-dures for the removal of snow in order to avoiddamage to the structure.

The committee is in discussion with buildingauthorities to issue a bulletin to building ownersand property managers outlining these same cautions and emphasizing the requirement for aproper procedure when removing snow fromroofs.

Thanks to Committee andSubcommittee Participants

I wish to thank the committee members, whohave given a great deal of their time and thosefrom the membership at large who have joined toshare their expertise in tackling difficult technicalproblems on the various subcommittees.

On behalf of the committee, I would also liketo thank Mr. Dave Ennis for his considerable per-sonal efforts and support of the work of the com-mittee. ■

Safety in Engineering PracticeCommitteeContinued from page 14

Friday, October 29 & Saturday, October 30, 1999




U nder our new organisational structure atAPEGM, several new Boards report to theExecutive Director. These Boards repre-

sent committees that deal with non-mandatedissues and, ultimately, assist the staff in servingthe membership. The Advocacy and MemberServices Board consists of the Chairs of theAwards Committee, Salary Committee, SportsCommittee, Image Enhancement Committee, andEducation Support Committee. (The EducationSupport Committee does not yet exist due to lackof a Chair.) A Councillor is appointed as Chair.

As a new Board, we were slow to start, andmet only once. Our initial discussions focussedon educating the other members on each commit-tee’s activities. In addition, we discussed con-cerns, overlaps, and opportunities. The Boardintends to identify and implement ways that theweb page can be used for communication ofmember services, as well as image enhancementrelated to these committees (e.g., drawing atten-tion to our “heroes”).

An additional future initiative for the Board isto work with the Nominating Committee to iden-tify a Chair and members of the Education Sup-port Committee. This will eventually take someof the load off those on the Image EnhancementCommittee by taking over some of the responsi-bilities of the old Public Awareness Committee.Some of my old colleagues from the former PACommittee, who focus on school outreach, mightconsider taking on this leadership role! ■

Advocacy & MemberServices BoardC. S. Roberts, Chair

MembersD.G. OsmanE.G. Parker.C.N. PerrettR.H. Bernhardt

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

graduates of programs accredited by the CCPE’sCanadian Engineering Accreditation Board(CEAB). Its purpose is to ensure that everyoneregistered with the Association has attained alevel of education at least equivalent to thatobtained by graduates of CEAB-accredited programs.

The ARC uses the degrees, transcripts, syllabiand other information submitted by the applicantsto determine whether, and which, technical exam-inations should be assigned. The examinationsare selected from 11 syllabi prepared by theCCPE’s Canadian Engineering QualificationsBoard (CEQB). Joan McKinley, the Secretary tothe ARC, arranges for the preparation of theexamination papers and organizes the examina-tion sessions. The ARC monitors the progress ofcandidates who have been assigned examinations,and evaluates their performance on these exami-nations, until the committee is satisfied that theapplicant is academically qualified for registra-

tion. The ARC also establishes the date of aca-demic qualification, which impacts on the accept-ability of some of the work experience of theapplicants. During the year, 18 applicants com-pleted their assigned examinations and 16 ofthose were then considered academically quali-fied.

In the past year the ARC assessed 35 appli-cants, assigning a total of 66 examinations. Thecommittee also considered five reassessmentsand four appeals on various grounds.

During the last year, the ARC also consideredone applicant with an accredited degree who wasnot able to meet the admissions criterion forexperience to have been obtained within ten yearsof receipt of the degree. The applicant was askedto pass two examinations before registration.Lastly, the ARC was asked by the RegistrationCommittee for an opinion on an individual whobecame registered in another association withouthaving completed the requirements assigned sev-eral years ago by the ARC.

The CEQB syllabi and associated recommen-dations for minimum standards for registrationare reviewed and revised by CEQB on a regularbasis. This year, 19 new or revised syllabi wereadopted by the ARC and the committee is nowreviewing and updating its procedures and poli-cies to reflect both the recommendations fromCCPE and the cumulative experience of the ARCmembers.

As well this year, the ARC welcomed twogeoscientists, Drs. Nancy Chow and IanFerguson, to the Committee. They have workedto complete criteria and procedures related to theregistration of geoscientists, and the ARC willsoon begin evaluating geoscience applicants.

I want to thank the ARC members for theirconscientious work dealing with difficult andunique situations. As a Committee, we learn fromeach case and attempt to use that information toimprove our work. This process is not alwayseasy. I also wish to recognize the dedicated andvery supportive work of Joan McKinley, whohandles the administrative work of the committeeand the examination process. ■

Academic ReviewCommitteeD.G. Chapman, Chair

MembersK.M. AdamS. BalakrishnanE. BridgesN ChowI. FergusonD.S. JayasW.M. KinsnerR.J. PartridgeR.W. MenziesN. RajapakseH.M.H. SolimanB. StimpsonK.N. TandonD.M. WeitenS.H. Rizkalla (Liaison Councillor)

P age 15 of August’s issue ofThe Keystone Professionalraised some eyebrows.

Entitled “Geoscientists QuestionReality of Global Warming”, it sum-marized the views of some geosci-entists who question the suppositionthat human activities could causewarming of the earth’s climate. Thepurpose in preparing the article was

not to put forward a personal posi-tion. Indeed, my professional back-ground and experience does notqualify me as an expert in this area.Rather, the objective was to informand provoke the reader by present-ing a contrary position on an issuewhich is presented by the media andour political leaders as one of themost important challenges facing

humankind, and in particular to giveour predominantly engineering read-ership some further insights into therole of geoscience in this vitaldebate. Other scientists, of course,hold to the view that global warm-ing is due in part to human activitiesand consider the assertion that thereis no supporting evidence as a “pop-ular myth” (see www.ucsusa.org/

warming/gw.myths.html).

My attention has also beendrawn by an APEGM member toanother valuable resource on theWorld Wide Web. The Pew Centrefor Global Climate Change (www.pewclimate.org/about/), which wasestablished in 1998, involves agroup of leading companies whowork with the Centre to educate andencourage for the reduced emissionsof greenhouse gases. The Centre’sreports particularly focus on envi-ronmental impacts, economics, andpolicy issues. ■

Global Climate ChangeBy: B. Stimpson, P.Eng.


U.S. Patent # 5,713,287One of hundreds of great ideasat Creo that made it from the draw-ing board to the market.

Are you an inventor?We turn ideas into products.

Remember why you chose a career in mechanical engineering? Chances are you were hoping to make a real differ-ence…not prototypes that sit on a shelf collecting dust.

Imagine using lasers to write gigabytes of data onto printing plates the size of a whiteboard – 240 tiny spotsat a time – with micron accuracy. At Creo, we develop and manufacture computer-to-plate (CTP) digital imaging systems. Printersaround the world rely on our products every day to prepare plates just minutes before press time.

‘Creo’ means ‘I create’ and ‘I believe’. We create and manufacture at all levels: from research, designand development to the production of fully automated systems as big as a city bus. Since 1983, our engineering teamshave developed the world’s first terabyte optical tape recorder, the world’s first automated commercial CTP imaging sys-

tem and numerous other award-winning systems and patentedtechnologies.

We believe in the potential of our industry and the talentof our people. With 1,400 employees – 400 dedicated to R&D –we’re committed to driving the future of digital imaging. In fact,our company has been growing by 30% a year to meetincreased demand.

Headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, Creo is built on afoundation of solid technology, economic thinking and a healthymeasure of fun. Our unique work environment is based on self-management, focused teamwork, decentralized decision-mak-ing, profit-sharing and performance-based compensation.As a result, our personnel turnover rate is one of the lowest inthe high-tech sector.

Like to know more?

imagine. create . bel ieve.

Creo Products Inc. 3700 Gilmore Way, Burnaby B.C. Canada V5G 4M1 phone (604) 451-2700 fax (604) 419-4758

Visit our web site: www.creo.com/employ.html or contact us by email: [email protected]

Our team requires a number of people withexperience in the following areas:

• Machine design • Pneumatics

• Fluid flow • Applied robotics

• Solidworks CAD • Mechanisms

• Precision mechanics • Casting

• Vibration analysis • Automation

• Sheet metal and plastics design

Mechanical Engineers & Technologists

The CCPE Term Life Plan is life insurancedesigned to meet the high standards of professional engineers.Life insurance can and should be evalu-ated like any engineering project — interms of cost effectiveness, quality assur-ance and continuous improvement.The CCPE Term Life Plan was designed tomeet those requirements.The Plan offers you exceptional coveragefor just pennies a day — a very small priceto pay for your peace of mind. In fact, you

can choose up to $1 million in protection tosecure your family’s financial future.

The Plan is sponsored by the CanadianCouncil of Professional Engineers andunderwritten by Manulife Financial — oneof Canada’s largest life insurance companies.

Join the more than 47,000 engineers whodepend on this plan for their families’ finan-cial security. Visit our website dedicated to theEngineer’s Plan to determine your needs, calculate your premiums or apply on-line.

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

To find out more, or to receive a free information kit call:

1 888 598-CCPEor visit our website at www.manulife.com/affinityccpe

or e-mail us at: [email protected]

G r o u p T e r m L i f e a n d A c c i d e n t I n s u r a n c e

Sponsored by: Underwritten by:

LOW

COST!

Because it’s for them, you want the very best protection.

new dean of engineering association of professional...

Documents