Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 48 - Evidence - June 11, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 7:02 p.m. to study the current state of the safety elements of the bulk transport of hydrocarbon products in Canada; and for the consideration of a draft budget.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Richard Neufeld, and I represent the Province of British Columbia in the Senate and I am the chair of this committee. I would like to welcome honourable senators, members of the public with us in the room and viewers across the country who are watching on television.
I would now ask the senators around the table to introduce themselves. I will begin by introducing my deputy chair from Alberta, Grant Mitchell.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Edmonton, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator McCoy: Elaine McCoy, Alberta.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff. Lynn Gordon is our clerk, and our two Library of Parliament analysts are Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
On November 28, our committee was authorized by the Senate to initiate a study on the safe transportation of hydrocarbons in Canada. The study will examine and compare domestic and international regulatory regimes, standards, and best practices relating to the safe transport of hydrocarbons by transmission pipelines, marine tanker vessels and railcars.
Our committee has held 15 meetings on this study to date. We have also travelled to Calgary, Sarnia, Hamilton, Saint John, Halifax and Point Tupper, Nova Scotia for fact-finding meetings and site visits.
Today I am pleased to welcome by video conference from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Mark Flint, Professional Engineer and Chief Executive Officer; and Al Schuld, Professional Engineer and Registrar.
Gentlemen, I want to apologize for holding you up for so long. We appreciate very much that you stayed to discuss with us some issues we would like to talk to you about tonight. I know we are an hour late, but things happen in the chamber that we cannot control, and we cannot start until they rise. That is why we are running a little bit late. Thank you very much.
Maybe we could proceed with your statement and then we will ask some questions. There will be some other senators coming in from the chamber as we go along and we will introduce them so you know who else is here. Please go ahead, sir.
[Translation]
Mark Flint, Professional Engineer and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to contribute to the important work you do within the Senate of Canada.
[English]
I am especially appreciative today if my contribution will assist our members either today or into the future. As you know, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, or APEGA, regulates the practices of engineering and geoscience in Alberta. Our mission is to serve the public interest by regulating the practice of engineering and geoscience, and by providing leadership for our professions and upholding our members in their professional practice.
The association's authority is derived from the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, and our jurisdiction is limited to Alberta. However, we work with our sister associations to ensure the integrity of our professions across the country.
We have about 69,500 members that include professionals, members in training, as well as students. We also have about 4,500 organizations that hold a permit to practise. This construct is unique in Alberta in that our organizations that practise engineering or geoscience must have a professional practice management plan. That is the mechanism by which organizations manage the practice of the profession, internally.
We also have obligations to go beyond regulations, and we work with educators, including schools at all grade levels and post-secondary institutions, to foster interest in the professions and to promote further diversity.
That is the end of my prepared statement, and I would be happy to take questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Two more senators have joined us: Senator Wallace from New Brunswick and Senator Patterson from Nunavut.
I will defer first to my deputy chair from Alberta, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much for taking the time to be here, for your patience and for your impressive French. That was very much appreciated here.
I would like to ask a question concerning the relationship of an association like APEGA with the development of CSA standards. As you are probably aware, I think it is the CSA Z662 standard that is critical in the governing of safety standards for pipelines.
Do you have a structured relationship with the body and the groups that develop those standards, are you called upon from time to time, or is it something different from those two possibilities?
Mr. Flint: Thank you, senator. Those technical developments are outside the realm of our professional practice. We do not regulate those. Obviously, our members are involved with the development of those standards, but it is separate from our professional association.
Senator Mitchell: If members came across a problem, would they have some obligation to tell your organization? I do not mean this quite the way it sounds, but would your organization have some sort of structured institutional interest in that kind of engineering problem? Would you take action or how would your membership deal with that?
Mr. Flint: If you want to use the word "obligation," I would suggest that every member has an obligation to practise his profession according to the code of ethics that we support. If something were seen to cause someone an ethical dilemma developing in the workplace or something gave them concern, there is a mechanism within a professional regulation whereby they could come to the association and lay a complaint. I would suggest, however, that it is probably not the first choice of approach to solve the problem. They would probably go back to the organization that has the jurisdiction over that code or over that standard and probably not come to us first.
Senator Mitchell: I am thinking of Kalamazoo, Michigan, where there was a very unfortunate spill a couple of years ago. I guess it is the same for one of your engineers, and that was not even in your jurisdiction. Let us take a spill in Alberta and one of your engineers saw it. Maybe a group of engineers began to understand that there was a consistent engineering problem, they would go to the provincial government, I guess in that case or to the NEB or whatever jurisdiction covered that.
Mr. Flint: Yes. I would think the National Energy Board would be their first stop. I do not think that precludes them from taking other action with the province or even raising it as a professional practice issue through us. For pipeline things in particular, I would say it would be unusual for us to see that kind of complaint.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned that you have an obligation to create a professional practice management plan. Could you expand on that and tell us what it is? Among other things, is it a code of conduct? What role does that play in determining the behavior of your professional engineers?
Mr. Flint: It is a unique-to-Alberta construct, as I mentioned. As an organization that practices, we must have a plan that states how the profession will be managed within our company or within our organization. I say "organization" because municipalities also have to have this plan in place. The City of Calgary, for example, is a large permit holder and they manage the practice of engineering so they have a Professional Practice Management Plan, PPMP, as well.
It is a series of policies and procedures that they have set out that work for that company internally. It is the way that they discharge the oversight of the profession. A responsible member is named on the permit, and that person is responsible for the execution of the professional practice within the company.
Senator Mitchell: Do they submit that to you for approval or some sort of review?
Mr. Flint: The answer to the first part of your question is no, they do not submit it for approval necessarily. However, we frequently assist with companies and organizations as they develop those Professional Practice Management Plans. From time to time we audit the PPMPs within a company's organizations. We go out and check on them to determine whether they have things they need to effectively manage that plan internally. There is a follow- up system.
I would say that it is not a compulsory check every year. We audit a certain selection every year based on resource allocation.
Senator McCoy: Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us and being patient enough to wait for us.
In Alberta we have been very proud of our engineering capacity and capability for many years. Since 1947 and before, we have been growing with the oil and gas business and so has our expertise. We are well-regarded in that line of endeavour. By the same token, there have been various bottlenecks in providing those services, it is fair to say, when construction in the oil and gas business is at a peak. Would you agree that there have been shortages of engineers and engineering design capability in Alberta?
Mr. Flint: Yes, and I would say that it still exists. There is a shortage of engineering professionals and NGO science professionals in the province.
Senator McCoy: We have been responding to that by reaching out to other provinces and other countries to assist our companies in meeting their needs. Is that correct?
Mr. Flint: Yes. I would say that approximately 35 to 40 per cent of transfers into our province in the profession accounts for people from outside Canada — new Canadians.
Senator McCoy: The role played by APEGA would be to ensure that their skills are up to our standards. Is that correct?
Mr. Flint: Yes, we check academic credentials and we ensure that they have the right experience and prerequisites before we give them a full licence to practise independently. That is correct.
Senator McCoy: In terms of your practical experience with workers from abroad, how effective has it been? Have there been language problems? Has it been seamless? Have they been absorbed into the technical and professional expertise with ease or have there been some snags?
Mr. Flint: You have touched on several key factors. Language is definitely an issue, and it is one criterion that we look at when we are licensing people. Understanding what educational background people have when they come from outside Canada is a real challenge. We have a rigorous, robust accreditation process for educational institutions inside Canada. We have an understanding of the process for some universities and post-secondary institutions outside Canada. For some places, it is a real challenge to understand what the curriculum has laid down. In fact, when we are not sure, we go into real detail and go to the course-by-course evaluation, sometimes looking at the actual syllabus for that course to understand. In that way, we can be sure that people have what they need academically.
The other question you touched on is culture. You might even look at recent events with SNC-Lavalin to understand that the way things are done in Canada is not necessarily reflective of the way things are done in other parts of the world. That is just the way the world is so we have to be mindful of that assimilation and adjustment period. That is another concern.
Last year we had almost 8,400 applications to APEGA. That means that out of the 95,000 people that came to Alberta last year, almost 10 per cent registered or applied for a permit within APEGA. That is a pretty big challenge. The balance for us is to make sure we enable industry and new Canadians to be equipped to participate and contribute toward that industry, while ensuring that the public interest is held uppermost in our minds.
The Chair: A few other senators have joined us: Senator Lang from Yukon; Senator MacDonald, from Nova Scotia; and Senator Massicotte, from Quebec.
Senator Lang: I would like to welcome our guests. We appreciate your being here given that we were so late.
I would like to follow up on Senator Mitchell's question about your organization as a professional organization and your credentials.
We had a witness here last week who has been seen as a whistleblower. In fact, because of his work, the NEB has actually made some changes with respect to the pipelines and apparently how they go about, for the purpose of inspections, ensuring that these particular welds meet code. What I do not quite understand is, when an individual has these credentials and, basically, his or her ability to make a living depends on the credibility of those credentials, where they get into a situation where they are being compromised to do their job.
You said earlier, if I could paraphrase, in answer to the question from Senator Mitchell, that it is very seldom that you have a professional engineer come to your organization and say, "There is an organization or an industry asking me to do things that my professional engineer credentials do not allow me to do."
First, have you had any engineer come to your association to say that they are being put into a compromised position as far as the workplace is concerned, which brings into question their professional engineering credentials? Have you had any cases of that, of any kind, come to your association?
Mr. Flint: Thanks for the question, senator. I will defer to my registrar, Mr. Schuld. He has been with APEGA for a fair amount of time, and I think he is best positioned to respond to your question.
Al Schuld, Professional Engineer and Registrar, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta: Thank you, senator. A regular part of what my staff does is giving out what we call practice advice. Often, a person who finds him or herself in a situation like you have described will say, "What do I do? Someone is trying to overrule me on this. Yet, I feel that standards are being compromised." A lot of what we give out is practice advice, which has to do with getting into the little talk that I call our "alternate dispute resolution talk 101." First, you go to your boss. I will not repeat the whole thing for you, but we often give out practice advice. It might have escalated to the point where a person's job is at risk if he does not knuckle under, so that is where we get to the infrequent thing where a person says, "I still feel strongly that I am being asked to do things or to approve things that really should not be approved. They do not meet standards." They are, in effect, putting their job at risk by going as far as blowing the whistle. There is a way of escalating, in a professional way, your concerns about being overridden in your professional opinion.
Senator Lang: I would like to follow up on that, if I could. As you know, we are doing an overview of the safety of pipelines, and I want to go back to the original question from Senator Mitchell.
Once again, with respect to a professional engineer, or professional engineers, who would come to your association — I have a broad question to put to you — have there been a number of engineers in the area of pipeline responsibilities come to your association for those little talks and chats or for further advice with respect to ensuring that their credentials are not being compromised because of the workplace, or are there just isolated cases?
Mr. Flint: I would say we do not have anything out of the ordinary. In fact, specifically from that sector of industry, I do not think there has been anything other than Mr. Vokes that I am aware of.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Flint, somewhat along the same lines as Senator Lang's questions, if someone had a concern with professional engineering design or professional engineering construction standards, say related to oil pipelines, and they felt that they were inadequate and that, as a result, the public and the environment were at risk, would it happen often or at all that you would have someone voice that concern to your association and expect you to take some action since you do represent professional engineering standards? Is that something that does occur or could occur?
Mr. Flint: Yes, it could occur, but I think there is a little bit of context that needs to be brought out at this point. Specifically, when it comes to companies that have infrastructure or operations that cross boundaries outside of our jurisdiction, for example, pipeline companies that have pipelines that traverse the borders and operate across the province, we do not have jurisdiction over those companies or over those permit holders. There is no requirement for them to have a permit to practice. That said, TransCanada, for example, has had a professional practice management plan in place for a long time, and they have cooperated and been a willing participant in that. Specifically, with respect to pipelines, we do not frequently get involved with pipeline companies. For other organizations, even big oil companies, we do have, I would say, more frequent interaction with members of those companies.
Senator Wallace: If the operations that were drawn to your attention involved only the province of Alberta and not the federal jurisdiction, is that something, again, where you could typically be called upon by one of your members or a member of the public, saying, "The engineering standard, construction standard or engineering design standard is, we believe, inadequate" and expecting you to take some action or to provide an opinion? Does that happen?
Mr. Flint: I think it is reasonable for someone to come to us and ask us to look at that, but I think it would be fair to say that, historically, that has not been the role or the mandate of a professional association such as APEGA. We have been more focused on ensuring that people have the correct credentials and background, and we have focused, traditionally, on ensuring that the individuals are fit to practice. However, this area that you are talking about has, I think, happened in the past. It has probably not happened as frequently as one might expect, though.
Senator Wallace: I expected to hear what you have just said, but, when Mr. Vokes appeared before us last week, he had very strong things to say about the operation of the NEB, the operation of TransCanada and the operation of your engineering association. I have a comment that he made here in front of me. He said, "To have a company operating outside of its permitted procedures. . .and then to have my professional organization not step up to the plate on something that severe is a little hard to watch."
That was in relation to something that apparently happened at Deer Creek Energy in Fort McMurray. He was very strong in suggesting to us that your organization did not step up to the plate. I am wondering what he means by that. In what way would you be expected to, in his words, "step up to the plate?"
Mr. Flint: I am not sure what the specific issue is at Deer Creek Energy in Fort McMurray. I am not familiar with that particular issue, but, if I could speak to his concerns with TransCanada for a moment, when stories broke publicly last fall, we had been in communications with Mr. Vokes since about May of last year. We were already aware of his concerns. He had made a written complaint, which he subsequently asked us to hold in abeyance until he felt comfortable with proceeding because he did not want us to disclose any further information.
We held it up. In the same testimony, he says right there that he almost has it ready for resubmission. We are aware of the fact that he has some concerns. In the fall of last year, when this story became public, I actually approached the National Energy Board, talked with their chief engineer and said:
This would be a great opportunity for APEGA to partner with the National Energy Board. Could we perhaps work together and provide you with some advice within our regulatory jurisdiction as to what we could do as you do your audit process with TransCanada?
Recognizing their jurisdictional lead role as a federal regulator. We certainly offered our help to support, and we were eager participants.
Senator Wallace: What was the response you received from the NEB?
Mr. Flint: They wanted to maintain their position as an independent auditor. They have a very robust engineering capability within the NEB, and they felt that they would prefer to keep that within their confines, so I respected that and we did not push the issue any further.
Senator Patterson: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I believe you have had the opportunity to review Mr. Vokes' testimony, so you will understand why we were interested in hearing from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. Is it correct that you have had a chance to review the presentation Mr. Vokes made?
Mr. Flint: I will say I had a chance to do it and, to be fair, given the limitations of time, I have skimmed through it today but I have read it.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I know this was short notice. However, I would like to direct you to a repeated comment he made. In his testimony to us, he talked about mistakes that were made with regard to a particular pipeline. I am looking at page 9 of the unrevised transcripts of June 6. It is just a short comment. He said:
It is unfortunate because, under the engineering act — the code of ethics — an engineer is required to know the codes and regulations they work under.
Could you elaborate for us? Is there a reference to a code of ethics in the Engineering Act, and is there a code of ethics for the profession in Alberta?
Mr. Flint: Yes, there is a Code of Ethics within the engineering act, and Rule No. 4 of the code reads as follows:
Professional engineers and geoscientists shall comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practices.
I believe that is the item he is talking about in the code of ethics.
Senator Patterson: Could you explain, please, how that code of ethics is to be monitored and enforced by the profession, or if it is monitored and enforced by the profession?
Mr. Flint: As you are aware, we are a self-regulating profession, so a lot of what we do is to instill a code of ethics and encourage people to follow that code of ethics without being overly prescriptive about how they should do that. Obviously these are professional judgment calls. I do not have a specific answer for you on that.
Senator Patterson: However, he will be able to make a complaint, and you have indicated that he probably intends to make a complaint, which you will be willing to deal with. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. Flint: There is absolutely a mechanism in place for us to receive complaints and take action on complaints. We fully anticipate that he will finish or finalize his submission to us, and we are ready to take action once we have his permission to proceed.
Senator Patterson: Would that process be a privileged, confidential process within the organization, or is it dealt with otherwise?
Mr. Flint: Like any investigation, we want to conduct them in private rather than in public. We have a number of investigations going on. We have one particular investigation going on with another very large permit holder, and we have not disclosed any of that information publicly. Obviously, if the investigation turns up nothing, then we do not want to create problems for anyone for no reason.
Mr. Schuld: Having said that, if there are to be charges against anyone or any company as a consequence of that investigation, a hearing would be held before a discipline committee, and those hearings are normally open to the public.
Senator Patterson: Could you elaborate on how charges might arise in connection with a complaint to the association, please?
Mr. Schuld: Certainly. We rely heavily on there being a written complaint from someone in the public or one of our members. That complaint is lodged with us. There is an investigative committee that investigates and gathers information. One of the due process things that occurs, of course, is that if you had a complaint against you as a professional engineer, you are entitled to see the written complaint that has been made about your conduct and give a response. This investigative committee, having seen the complaint, looked at the evidence, having seen the response and looked at that response, will make a decision whether or not there is a basis for drafting or putting together charges. They would then have to take their evidence before a disciplinary committee and prove those charges. That is a very short description of what can be a pretty lengthy process, but we both investigate, prosecute and judge complaints about the competence and the conduct of our members.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us. Let me pursue the same line of questioning, but maybe play the devil's advocate a little bit. As you know, federally and provincially, we have created professions that are supposed to be self-administered. Their self-administration is critical and it is the most efficient way to manage these issues. However, as you know, many Canadians have complained that most professions are very good at creating members of their profession but are not very good at disciplining them or ensuring that their quality and standards are maintained. As you made reference earlier, in Quebec, we have a particular problem now where, for many engineers, their integrity and, if you look at some bridges that fell apart, their competence, have been put in question. It is also seen by many that the professions are quick to protect their own, and they are more interested in protecting their own than they are in protecting the public. How do you respond to those comments? Is there any merit to them?
Mr. Flint: Yes, I have heard those comments before. I have heard that line of criticism before, and I certainly understand why one might think that. If I can go back to Senator McCoy's questions earlier, she alluded to the challenge that we have of bringing in people from other countries when it is difficult to verify credentials and when it is a challenge to help people assimilate to Canadian ways of doing business. We also have language barriers. Your comment gets at one of the key ways that we have traditionally regulated and that is to say that we ensure a high quality of standard for people getting into the profession, and we do as much as we can downstream to check up on the way that people regulate. The emphasis for professions generally and certainly within the engineering geoscience profession across Canada, and I would say this statement broadly, our focus is and has been on ensuring people have the right credentials to get in and the right experiential and other qualities before we actually grant them that licence, which gives them a fair degree of latitude to carry on on their own. It is a challenge.
Senator Massicotte: Once they have that licence, how do you ensure they maintain those standards and that their knowledge is maintained? Do you have a continuing education requirement where they pass tests every couple of years? Are there also courses on ethics? Explain to me what happens there.
Mr. Flint: We do have a professional practice exam requirement, which is a prerequisite to get entry. It is mostly a focus on ethics. We do have a continuing professional development program, which is mandatory in Alberta but is not the same standard across the country. We do require that everyone submit a certain amount of professional development per year, and they have to document it. Then we audit that, and we audit professional practice management plans every year within a certain amount of companies across the province. There are some audit mechanisms, but it is not every one every year.
Mr. Schuld: From time to time we remove members for failing to maintain their mandatory reporting of their mandatory professional development. You can lose your licence should you fail to do the things you must do.
Senator Massicotte: Is there any member of your association who lost his or her licence because of lack of good work in the last 10 years?
Mr. Schuld: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: How many?
Mr. Schuld: It immediately comes to mind that there are at least three individuals who we cancelled through the process.
Senator Massicotte: They did not satisfy the educational requirements or because of sloppy work?
Mr. Schuld: It was the work that they did while they were licensed by us as professional engineers.
Senator Massicotte: Do you have the same thing as the CA or CPA professions? They have roving audits. From an audit of company sense, engineering reports are equally important as audited financial statements. There is a roving team of auditors that self-regulates. They visit the companies and verify the quality of work. Does the engineering association have something similar where you have 10 or 20 people full-time looking at past studies, past works and so on?
Mr. Flint: I do not have the detailed knowledge of the CA system, but I understand they have probably one of the most robust systems in the country in terms of the regulatory process. They have mandatory audits of all their people on a certain amount of years. I think it is every five years, but do not quote me. Our system is not that rigorous. We have a team that does a slice of the population every year, but it is, I think, fairly small. We try to take on representational sizes. We do not target everyone. We look at both the practices and individuals.
Mr. Schuld: Of the 3,000 or 4,000 corporations that have a permit to practise, we will do a random audit or practice review of some 100 or so of those every year. They are randomly drawn as opposed to targeted. We can do a targeted review, but most of the work of that practice review board is a random review of the practice of engineering or geoscience by one of the companies.
Senator Massicotte: Who does that audit or review? Is it people from your institute, your profession or other members of the profession?
Mr. Schuld: They are all members of the profession that do the review, yes.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
The Chair: That looks like all the questions we have. I have a quick one for you.
I recall being told by Mr. Vokes that fittings and valves that are used in the pipeline industry are substandard, and that applied in Canada as well as in the U.S. Those fittings and valves, as I would understand, are off the shelf. Some company builds them, but they would build those fittings and valves to an engineering standard. Would it be correct that an engineer must actually have something to do with the design of that valve and put their stamp on it?
Mr. Flint: I think that is a broad generalization because depending on where the valves are manufactured, an engineer may or may not have been involved. If they were manufactured outside of Canada, there is not necessarily a Canadian engineer involved at all, so they could arrive in Canada with a certain set of specifications and it is simply sold as a market product.
I think one of the challenges, if you look at industry, is that when designs are made and implemented, there are sometimes variances in those parts. If you talk to Mr. Vokes or other members of the profession, the challenge is between engineering design and construction implementation. It might say one particular part, but you do not always get that part when you look at the actual end product. That is made for a variety of different reasons. There may be engineering design involved in that valve piece; it may not be as we know it. When you go to another country, what we might call an engineer in Canada might only be at a technical level based on the other country. However, from the other country's perspective, it is as good as they have and that is what is called an engineer. I think it is a sweeping statement to say an engineer, and certainly professional engineer, was involved in the design of every piece of piping valve.
The Chair: Okay. That is interesting. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate your time and the things that you have told us tonight. Again, I apologize on behalf of us all for keeping you later and I wish you the best. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Welcome back to the committee. I have a motion here that I will read out:
Is it agreed that the special study supplementary budget application (hydrocarbon transportation), for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, be approved, and that the Chair be authorized to submit the application to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)