About CPD


, , , ,

I recently received an anonymous comment to my July Candidate Statement post in which interesting points were made around continuous professional development, CPD. I think it is likely that others may have the same viewpoints, so I am addressing them here. The three points were:

  1. The Engineers and Geoscientists Act (which requires adherence to a Code of Ethics), in conjunction with the Code of Ethics, already creates a legal requirement to maintain competence, making the CPD bylaw redundant.
  2. Suggesting that there may be engineers or geoscientists who are not conducting sufficient professional development could be construed as violating the Code of Ethics.
  3. Very few, if any, engineers or geoscientists are completing insufficient CPD.

First, to clarify, in addition to requiring the development of and adherence to a Code of Ethics, the Act mentions professional development once, in reference to possible bylaws council can create “to assist in promoting and maintaining the competency and proficiency of members and licensees” (10.1.m.1). Previous members of the association created and updated the first Code of Ethics, which refers to CPD twice, in Principles Six and Ten. Principle Six states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their associates.

This principle is clearly about the requirement for professional development. Therefore, my anonymous commenter is correct: together, the Act and the Code of Ethics define the legal requirement for CPD. This, however, does not make the proposed bylaw redundant. Rather, we need the bylaw to operationalize the Act and regulate the activities of our members – this is the duty of APEGBC as a self-regulating body.

One simple way to officially uphold the Act has already been piloted for the past few years as a voluntary trial: a check-box on our membership renewal webpage. Unfortunately, I am aware that a number of our members do not click the check-box specifically because it is voluntary to do so, despite completing more than the annual development requirement. As a professional association, we need to demonstrate 100% member compliance so that legislators and public alike can be fully confident that all engineers and geoscientists are conducting sufficient professional development.

The second principle relating to professional development is Principle Ten, which states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and geoscience and protect the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

This is the second aspect of CPD: outreach to and education of the public. CPD protects the profession from misrepresentation and misunderstanding by requiring not only that each professional member is, in fact, increasing their own knowledge but that they are also helping to extend the public’s knowledge about engineering and geoscience. Many members are participating in school outreach programs, giving presentations and judging science fairs. Other members are participating in public presentations or mentoring junior engineers. These activities qualify for CPD hours, too.

Principle Ten is the principle that my anonymous commenter suggests is violated if someone suggests another member may not be CPD compliant, as if such an assertion casts aspersion on APEGBC. Yet this is nonsense: identifying members at fault is good for APEGBC because it means that we are paying attention to what each other is doing so that only qualified engineers, geoscientists and licensees are permitted to practice.  There are members who have been negligent — just take a look at the disciplinary page on the website.

On a technical level, Principle Ten refers only to educating the public about our professions so that neither members nor the public misrepresent APEGBC. It does not refer to member actions, unlike Principles Seven and Nine. These two principles directly relate to members misrepresenting other professional members, highlighting our obligations to support other professionals yet report them if they do something “hazardous, illegal or unethical”. Interestingly, these two principles actually support my view that we must have the freedom to challenge the few professional members who are completing insufficient CPD as determined by their peers: those members are misrepresenting their knowledge and expertise.

For reference, Principle Seven states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment.

Principle Nine states that engineers and geoscientists must:

Report to their association or other appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by members, licensees or others.

It is worth noting that the majority of engineers and geoscientists have been maintaining their responsibilities by taking classes, attending workshops, reading relevant trade journals and sharing knowledge with other professionals. It is, however, somewhat naïve to believe this applies to us all. I have worked with hundreds of amazing professionals who more than uphold the APEGBC Code of Ethics. Yet, I regret to say that I know of a couple who just don’t make as much time for CPD as they should. These two individuals, less than 0.5% of my professional acquaintances, have the potential to destroy the incredible reputation we share as professionals by shirking their responsibilities in some way. When we call them to task about this lack, we strengthen our profession and we show others we believe this principle to be vital. This is how we further protect the public.

I am not sure if my anonymous commenter had an actual objection to mandatory CPD, or only wished to assert that he or she thinks it is redundant. Perhaps the real objection may be similar to one of those I have heard personally or read on the CPD microsite, such as: a concern that reporting CPD will take too much time (It won’t: it only takes a couple minutes), a concern that verifiable CPD activities are too expensive (Some are, but many of the activities conscientious engineers and geoscientists undergo are verifiable and free), a concern that non-professionals are dictating to members what qualifies for CPD (Not happening: we have around a thousand member volunteers, some of whom have informed the guidelines for development requirements within their own disciplines, member to member — as for the specific activities, we each have the responsibility to decide for ourselves), a concern that non-practicing members cannot meet the practice requirement (Irrelevant: non-practicing members do not have to complete CPD because they are not practicing as engineers or geoscientists), or a concern that the requirements are too high (Through consultation with over 4000 members, the number of hours has been lowered).

What is the downside of mandatory CPD? I cannot see one. Even if having a bylaw for mandatory CPD was redundant, which it is not, the worst outcome would be wasting a minute or two in checking the box on the renewal form.

What are the benefits? Self-regulation, increased public trust, increased education, increased relevance, increased participation and engagement of members, and enhanced engineering and geoscience practice.

There is nothing to lose and much to gain with mandatory CPD.

I urge all APEGBC members to review the CPD microsite and read the considered answers to member questions. Read the requirements of other professions in BC and other engineering and geoscience regulators across Canada. Consider your own development activities and see how many of them already align with the CPD requirements. Mandatory CPD is an easy way to uphold our Act and, more importantly, public safety.

I hope this helps you make your decision as you vote on the new bylaw.

Candidate 2015

Thank you for nominating me for re-election to the 2015 APEGBC Council. As current councilor, I am pushing council to improve and enhance the general reputation of the Association and of its members, to promote diversity and gender balance, and to advocate for all aspects of fairness in our profession. As I learn more about our complex organization, key factors continue to warrant specific attention:

Government Relations: Fostering great relationships with government representatives remains a priority. These are the people who influence the reach of APEGBC in the public sphere and who support our initiatives in legislation to increase the effectiveness of APEGBC members. Council’s challenge is to truly collaborate with APEGBC members in developing the proposals that go forth to government.

Professional Governance Activities: Recent interdisciplinary studies have broadened my perspective on how we can and must work together to effect the change we wish to see. Of utmost importance are innovative fair practices that enhance all committees, reflective volunteer care and recognition, policy development that covers the full engineering profession, and the fair implementation of PD reporting.

About fair practices: My focus is on three general practices: meeting technology, committee best practices and mechanisms for members to build relationships with council.

Meeting Technology: Society is changing at a rapid pace, as always. New tools and techniques regularly become available to support committee work. Often members cannot attend meetings in person and we rely on teleconferencing as the technology to connect people. I look forward to incorporating video conferencing into our toolkit. Although Skype and FaceTime are not considered sufficiently secure for professional work, video conferencing software is available and incorporated by some of our membership.

Committee support: Committee work is the active part of belonging to a profession. Many of APEGBC’s committees are very well functioning groups who engage their members, share the duties amongst the group and actively involve new members in those responsibilities. Recently, however, I became aware that some committees need more assistance with succession planning and diversity. Our APEGBC Volunteer Opportunities announcements are often overlooked, so I wish to explore new ways to both recruit future volunteers and assist committees to better engage their members. Best practices can be developed to support all committees.

Mechanisms for Building Relationship between Councilors and Members: Council members make efforts to connect with members as often as possible, but it is difficult to do so. As a former active branch member, I knew very little about the working of APEGBC and, especially, its council. One of the reasons I first decided to run for council two years ago was to learn about the mechanisms we have in place to run this very large organization.

About PD: Our Code of Ethics requires that we continue to develop our professional knowledge and skills. Yet, all of us can name at least one person we believe may be shirking these duties in some way. What is the minimum requirement for a geoscientist to remain current in her knowledge? What is the minimum requirement for an engineer? I believe these requirements are different for each individual professional engineer and geoscientist, yet in order to protect our reputation, we must somehow ensure that every one of us maintains our relevant and current knowledge within our disciplines. Over 45% of our membership are voluntarily reporting that we are attending conferences, reading trade journals, giving presentations to share our new knowledge of the applications of science in our designs and creations, and participating in the activities of APEGBC. While I would like to trust that the remaining 55% of our membership are learning about new methods and regulations, I believe that number is slightly smaller and that the small group who are not remaining current put our reputation at risk and, more importantly, public safety at risk.

We are one of very few professions across Canada whose members are not required to report their professional development. I wish to understand what the resistance is, beyond a fear of being discovered as non-compliant.

Supporting Branch Initiatives: Our Branches are the lifeblood of APEGBC. Our ability as Branch Members is to reach deeply into each regional community where we have a great capacity to effect change in our society. The more involved I am in service to APEGBC, the more aware I have become about the dichotomy of the reputation our professions enjoy and suffer among British Columbians and the broader community, national and global. Overall, we are well respected and recognized for our integrity and fairness. Our employers are increasingly receptive to fostering diversity in their employee populations and our designs and creations are world-renown. Yet few truly understand what it is that we do and our youth are generally misinformed about what it means to be a professional in geoscience and engineering.

Over the last few years, the post-secondary institutions of BC have become increasingly active in delivering outreach programs to students in elementary, middle and high schools across the province. These programs, like Science Venture in the summer months, and Go Eng Girl or A Taste of Electronics during the school year, provide activities that expose participants to design and innovation, thereby creating knowledge about careers that apply science to make the world a better place. This is what we do as engineers and geoscientists in our places of work and communities. As Branch members, we play an even greater role in educating youth through our work in local outreach programs.

Diversity: Geoscience has maintained gender balance for many years (), however increasing the number of women in engineering continues to be a focus for engineering.  Great headway has been made to date and APEGBC will continue to support organizations in developing policies that acknowledge and accommodate the needs of diverse populations: research has shown that financial and organizational success comes more swiftly to corporations that achieve full gender and racial diversity (with at least 30% of underrepresented minorities) by increasing employee satisfaction and retention, thereby stimulating creativity, loyalty and productivity. Our public school system has been tremendously successful in supporting the needs of boys and girls in all aspects of education (well, some work still needs to be done to improve boys’ literacy); my doctoral studies focus on the transition high school physics and engineering education. This participant action research will shift the paradigm to incorporate engineering principles in the teaching of physics labs.  The diversity of our association was made apparent to me at the induction ceremonies I attended in Vancouver. It is so exciting to see the multi-coloured face of engineering and geoscience today, reflecting the general population so much better than ever before. Our challenge continues to be how APEGBC can best support all members – working in large companies or small, locally or globally, in one jurisdiction or in many.


  • Doctor of Social Science (Interdisciplinary), Royal Roads University, 2018
  • MBA (General), University of Phoenix , 2007
  • BASc (Mechanical Engineering), University of British Columbia, 1987

Professional History

  • Instructor, Mechanical Engineering, Camosun College, 1994 – 1996, 2001 – present
  • Principal, The Lokhorst Group Ventures, Inc, 2008 – present
  • Mechanical Engineer, Boeing Canada, de Havilland Division, 1988 – 1991

APEGBC Activities

  • Member, Council, 2013 – present
  • Member, Audit Committee, 2013 – present
  • Member, Governance Committee, 2013 – present
  • Member, Mentorship Committee, 2013 – present
  • Outreach Coordinator, Victoria Branch, 2012 – 2013
  • Outreach Activities Volunteer, Victoria Branch 2009 – 2013
  • Secretary, Victoria Branch, 2008 – 2012
  • Executive Member, Victoria Branch, 2007 – 2013
  • Registered Professional Engineering, 1990 – present
  • Division for the Advancement of Women in Engineering and Geoscience, periodic membership

Related Professional Activities

  • Chair, Professional Development Committee, Camosun College Faculty Association, 2012-2013
  • Councilor, Education Council, 2008 – 2013
  • Chair, Education Council, Camosun College, 2009 – 2011
  • Chair, Academic Governance Council of British Columbia, 2010
  • Member, Camosun College Board of Governors, 2009-2011
  • Member, American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 – present

Community Involvement

  • United Way Campaign Co-Chair, Camosun College, 2014-2015
  • Loaned Representative, United Way Greater Victoria, 2013
  • Bereavement Minister, St. Joseph the Worker Parish, 2008 – present
  • Healthy Minds Ambassador, Camosun College, 2012 – present
  • Peer Coach, Camosun College, 2011 – present
  • Instructional Skills Workshop Faciltator, 2011 – present
  • Field Hockey Coach, Victoria Junior Field Hockey Association, 1997 – 2004

For more information about me, please view my LinkedIn profile at:http://ca.linkedin.com/in/kathytarnailokhorst
For information about the vision, mission and values of APEGBC, visit:http://apeg.bc.ca/about/mission.html
Official Candidate Statement, 2015 Election

The Royal Magazine

My first article for The Royal, the student magazine for Royal Roads University…  🙂

Scholarly Musings on the “F-Word” by an Interdisciplinary Engineer

Flickr: Roddy Keetch

First off, I must clarify: I am neither an interdisciplinary engineer nor an integrated engineer. These are terms typically used to describe someone who has expertise in more than one discipline of engineering, which I do not. Rather, I am an engineer who is also becoming an interdisciplinary scholar. The “f-word” I am referencing has many more than four letters…. [read more]


Inaugural Event – AMALGAMATION!

I am very excited to announce that I have co-founded a new society in my hometown: The Victoria Salon. Our purpose is to promote public debate about relevant – and potentially contentious – issues to better inform us all and to raise the level of knowledge-based decision-making.

The Victoria Salon

Join us on March 24th, 2015, in the Young Auditorium at Camosun College, Lansdowne Campus.

The Topic

Be it resolved that whereas the citizens of Greater Victoria have elected, through a non-binding question,  to explore the concept of Amalgamation, the 13 municipalities must move towards amalgamating civic services as quickly as possible.



Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, PhD bio
Leslie Ewing bio

spare: Shellie Gudgeon bio


Jim McDavid, PhD bio
Nils Jensen  bio


Reading List

The following list was blue-skied by Kathy and in no way represents the views of the panellists. Readings to be vetter.

Headed for Splitsfille? Dawn Chafe, Atlantic Business Magazine

WHY MUNICIPAL AMALGAMATIONS? HALIFAX, TORONTO, MONTREAL. Andrew Sancton, University of Western Ontario <asancton@uwo.ca>

Halifax man starts petition to reopen amalgamation debate. Jacqueline Foster, CTV Atlantic

Alternatives to amalgamation in Australian local government: the case of Walkerville. Brian Dollery, University…

View original post 91 more words

Another physicist for my research…


, , , ,

Thank you, Donna Milgram, for linking this article by Rachel E. Scherr in your newsletter:Hmm...not just the classroom, but women experience this phenomenon in boardrooms and meeting rooms across the professions

Guest: What keeps girls from studying physics and STEM | Opinion | The Seattle Times | September 14, 2014

Rachel writes:

I had fallen in love with physics while working as a science museum docent, where I learned the simple principles behind beautiful and puzzling natural phenomena.

My advanced placement (AP) physics class, unfortunately, was about memorizing equations and applying them to specific contrived examples. I did not perform well on the midterm exam. The teacher advised me to drop the course, along with all the other girls in the class.

I stayed despite the teacher’s pressure, as the only girl in the class, and did well in the long run.

Funny, that cartoon also reflects what women experience in boardrooms and meeting rooms across sectors and across professions.

I will have to connect with Rachel Scherr: our research seems to align…

Miss Possible soon to join Goldie Blox in the Toy Aisle

Just heard about this new challenger in the battle against gendered toys: Miss Possible. This doll will keep Goldi Blox company as they, together, reduce the pink in the girls’ toy aisle. Supriya Hobbs and Janna Eaves, who met while in the University of Illinois engineering program, launched their campaign on Indiegogo mid-July and reached their goal just last week.

Pretty exciting to see young engineers stepping up to make social change.

Shaking up the opportunities for girls: http://www.bemisspossible.com


What is feminism today?


, , , , ,

The f-word came up a few weeks ago and now it seems I cannot get away from it…

When I started this doctoral program to research the gender balance in engineering question, I wanted to completely avoid the f-word. In fact, during my final presentation at the end of the first residency period, I said outright that I am not a feminist. A feminist would want to be known as a female engineer but my greatest wish is that I am no longer introduced that way. I’m just an engineer. Continue reading