assOCiatiOn Our Borders Grow Thinner fOr mOre tHan a deCade, apeGGa Has Been BuildinG relatiOnsHips WitH state BOards in tHe u.s., in an effOrt tO maKe transfers simpler and Credentials mOre Widely aCCepted. sO, HOW is tHe assOCiatiOn dOinG sO far On tHe prOfessiOnal mOBility frOnt? by H. neil WindsOr, P.ENG. FEC, FCAE Executive Director & Registrar With rapid expansion in information technology and transportation, the world of the engineer and geoscientist is also changing quickly. Communication technologies make it possible for project participants in a number of places to connect instantly, no matter how far apart they are physically. It is also much more common for practitioners to need to easily relocate from place to place, either permanently or temporarily. International agreements made through Engineers Canada at the national level have improved mobility with certain countries. These have enhanced our ability to assess the academic qualifications of candidates from many foreign countries. Still, mobility with many parts of the world remains difficult, especially for those arriving here from countries that have either very low standards of licensure or no licensure requirements at all. In many countries engineering work is not regulated, which results in very low standards of construction and reduced levels of public safety. The agreement known as NAFTA, signed in 1994, set the stage for enhanced mobility between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Subsequently, in 1995, an agreement under NAFTA was signed between the national organizations representing the engineering profession. However, these are not regulatory bodies. Hence, agreement of all state and provincial jurisdictions was still required. All Canadian jurisdictions accepted the terms of the agreement — but Texas was the only U.S. state to sign on. Many other states have nonetheless honoured the provisions of the agreement. This was a good starting point, but efforts to strengthen this agreement met with little success. In many cases, mobility with some U.S. states is still more difficult than we would like. An international agreement known as the Washington Accord has facilitated mutual recognition of the university accreditation systems in some 16 countries around the world, thus making assessment of foreign qualifications less time consuming. In addition, through Engineers Canada a database of over 500 individual university programs from around the world has been compiled. This international degree database provides regulators with some knowledge of, and comfort with, these programs. Again, this expedites assessment of applicants from those universities. APEGGA Council seized this issue more than a decade ago and directed staff to make a concentrated effort to reduce or eliminate barriers to mobility for professionals. Since then, considerable work has gone into dealing with individual state boards, as well as their national body, to seek bilateral agreements for mutual recognition of professionals. Effecting change has been a slow process. This is largely because state legislation in most cases is quite restrictive. The boards themselves are sometimes powerless to effect change without reference to their legislature. State boards are not selfgoverning institutions as we know them in Canada; rather, usually they are a division or a department of government, and without some of the independence we enjoy here. Those that do have flexibility have often shown a desire and willingness to change, while others have taken the often laborious steps necessary to seek approvals. The U.S. state boards have organized themselves into four zones of their national body, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, or NCEES. We have chosen to concentrate on the Western Zone, because its states are most contiguous to Alberta. Even so, we have been invited to meet with other boards as well. Through attendance at meetings of NCEES and its Western Zone Annual Meetings (the May 2009 spring meeting was held in Banff), we have been successful in developing a very good working relationship with many boards and their representatives. Many of these 30 | PEG april 2010