On September 17, 1990, Probe International filed
complaints against British Columbia Hydro International, Hydro-Québec
International, SNC, Lavalin International, and Acres International for
their work on the Three Gorges Water Control Project Feasibility Study.
The complaints were filed with the regulatory bodies that are legally
responsible for regulating the profession of engineering in the
provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario. Using the findings
contained in Damming The Three Gorges: What Dam Builders Don’t Want You
To Know, Probe International accused the engineering companies of
negligence, incompetence, and professional misconduct.

Probe International argued that the engineers
licensed in British Columbia violated sections of their Code of Ethics
as found in the August 1990 Engineers and Geoscientists Act of British
Columbia, including: section 1(a) which states “He [the Engineer] will
be realistic…in the preparation of all estimates, reports, statements
and testimony;” section 1(b) which states “He will not distort…facts
in an attempt to justify his decisions or avoid his responsibilities;”
section 2 which states “The engineer will have proper regard for the
safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of his
professional duties. He will regard his duty to the public safety and
health as paramount;” and section 2(d) which states “He will guard
against conditions which are dangerous or threatening to the
environment and he will seek to ensure that all standards required by
law for environmental control are met.”

In Quebec, Probe International argued that the
Quebec engineers violated sections of the Code of Ethics of the Ordre
des ingénieurs du Québec, c. I-9, r.3., which is codified as a
regulation under the Engineers Act of the Province of Quebec,
including: Division II, Duties and Obligations Towards the Public,
section 2.01 states that “In all aspects of his work, the engineer must
respect his obligations towards man and take into account the
consequences of the performance of his work on the environment and on
the life, health and property of every person.” Division III Duties and
Obligations Towards Clients, section 3.02.04 states that “An engineer
must refrain from expressing or giving contradictory or incomplete
opinions or advice, and from presenting or using plans specifications
and other documents which he knows to be ambiguous or which are not
sufficiently explicit.” Section 3.02.08 states that “The engineer shall
not resort nor lend himself to nor tolerate…doubtful practices in the
performance of his professional activities.”

Finally, in Ontario, Probe International argued
that the Ontario-licensed engineers violated their professional duties
as defined in the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario, and in
particular in the Code of Professional Conduct and Code of Ethics
contained in the Act. Section 29(3)(a) of the Act says a member of the
association may be found incompetent if “the member…has displayed in
his professional responsibilities a lack of…judgment or disregard for
the welfare of the public of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates
the member or holder is unfit to carry out the responsibilities of a
professional engineer.” A member of the association may be found guilty
of professional misconduct, which as defined in section 86(2) of the
Regulation includes: “(a) negligence,” and “(b) failure to make
reasonable provision for the safeguarding of life, health or property
of a person who may be affected by the work for which the practitioner
is responsible.” Negligence is defined under section 86(1) of the
Regulation as “an act or an omission in the carrying out of the work of
a practitioner that constitutes a failure to maintain the standards
that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the
circumstances.” Furthermore, according to the Code of Ethics contained
in Regulation 538/84 of the Ontario Professional Engineers Act, under
section 91.2 “A practitioner shall, (i) regard his duty to public
welfare as paramount.”

If, after an investigation and a public hearing,
the three engineering regulatory bodies found the engineering companies
guilty of violating their professional responsibilities in the course
of carrying out the Three Gorges Water Control Project Feasibility
Study, they could have taken a variety of disciplinary actions,
including reprimanding, admonishing or counseling the offending member,
imposing conditions on that member, levying financial fines, and
suspending or revoking the engineers’ licences.

In each case, the Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, and the
Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of British
Columbia – each legislated to be self-regulating bodies of the
engineering profession in their own provinces – rejected Probe
International’s complaints of engineering negligence, incompetence, and
professional misconduct. Here is a synopsis of their reasons.

Quebec Response

In Quebec,
the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ) rejected Probe International’s
complaint on the grounds that “we have authority over individuals only,
and none over engineering firms.”* Probe International had lodged its
complaint against the firms involved because CYJV had refused to reveal
the names of the individual engineers that carried out the feasibility
study. OIQ nonetheless carried out an internal investigation, the
details of which were not disclosed to Probe International, and
concluded:

from an organizational perspective, it is impossible for
us to attribute to either one or several of our Members total or even
partial responsibility for any hypotheses, solutions, and
recommendations. Our Code of Professional Ethics applies only to
individuals, and not to committees, groups, companies, or consortia.

As for the findings in Damming
The Three Gorges: What Dam Builders Don’t Want You To Know, the OIQ
dismissed them, arguing that “these criticisms represent differences in
opinion among experts, differences that stem from the context of the
studies, time constraints for completion of the studies, and the
objectives of each study,” and not from professional misconduct,
negligence, or incompetence on the part of the engineering firms.

“The impossibility of charging any member of the
Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec,” the OIQ explained, “is primarily based
on the operational structure of the project, and its terms of
reference.” The OIQ maintains that,

No individual decision was taken by any particular
engineer for which he/she could be held responsible. In fact, all
decisions concerning this huge project were made by multidisciplinary
groups following discussions, criticism, and approvals or disapprovals
by internal review groups, a coordination group, then a management
committee. Finally, a panel of international experts from various
fields, completely independent of both the consortium and the firms
named in your denunciation, made a complete review of every major
recommendation. China was represented by a corps of responsible
individuals from every level.

“How is it possible, in this context,” OIQ asks,
“to attribute the responsibility for a specific act to one person in
particular? Québec legislation on the practice of engineering limits me
to the individual.”

The OIQ acknowledged that concerned citizens all
over the world wish to avoid environmental damage associated with
economic development. “But, on the other hand,” the OIQ explains,
“given that the very essence of engineering is to take nature’s forces
and resources and transform them into something to improve the lot of
humanity, the environment can be effected [sic]. Engineering’s integral
goals of development and environmental protection have always been, and
shall always be, comprised of objectives that are difficult to
reconcile. It is for this reason that the engineers must always
consider the consequences of their acts upon the environment, and
endeavour to minimize that impact.”

That said, the OIQ concludes: “In view of the
complexity of the organization, the divergent opinions of the experts,
the willingness of China to proceed with energy development, the
mandate awarded, and, above all, the absence of evidence for negligence
and misconduct directly attributable to any individual, it is our
decision to close this file.”

In other words, when two or more Quebec-licensed
engineers work together on a project, it is impossible to assign
responsibility for any or all decisions to any of them, and therefore
to guarantee the delivery of professional engineering standards
consistent with those contained in Quebec’s Engineers Act.

British Columbia Response

In
British Columbia, the Association of Professional Engineers of the
Province of British Columbia (APEBC) also carried out an investigation.
As in Quebec, the details of that investigation were undisclosed to
Probe International.

The APEBC decided not to proceed to a formal
Inquiry into the professional conduct of professional engineers
assigned to the Three Gorges Feasibility Study by B.C. Hydro
International, giving the following reasons.

First, the APEBC argues, it was outside the Terms of Reference for CYJV to consider alternatives to the Three Gorges Dam.

Next,
the APEBC maintains that Probe International’s concerns about the
environment and resettlement were “expressed as comments and unanswered
questions.” In any case, the APEBC goes on, “these matters were
reserved for study by other agents of The Peoples [sic] Republic of
China.”

“The concern of Probe and its experts that the
study is flawed by omissions reflects on the Terms of Reference. The
study report identifies a number of sociological and environmental
concerns that are related to the project, but not considered for
evaluation because of the Terms of Reference.” In fact, the Terms of
Reference is unambiguous. Under the headline “Environment” in the Terms
of Reference,* CYJV is instructed to “prepare two separate feasibility
assessments, one for environmental, the second for resettlement which,
inter-alia, will review, evaluate and recommend on the following
subjects:”

(a) the technical and social feasibility of plans for
resettlement of inhabitants and relocation of municipalities, industry,
transportation, utilities, from all project areas.

(b) the compatibility of the resettlement and relocation plans with overall project requirements and schedules.

(c) the adequacy of the cost estimates for
compensation, resettlement and relocation, including the management of
cultural property.

(d) the adequacy of institutional arrangements for
implementing the above plans on schedule, within budget, and according
to specifications.

(e) the adequacy of socio-economic impact and evaluation of the above plans, including arrangements for any ethnic minorities.

(f) the adequacy of fisheries and water quality
information in the reservoir area for the purpose of evaluating the
potential of reservoir fisheries and agriculture [sic], and of
approaches for linking reservoir fisheries with resettlement.

(g) the feasibility report should review other
environmental aspects such as: endangered species and habitats, health
and disease, esthetics and downstream effects.

(h) review, with special consideration, the
environmental problems in the Daning River Valley are to Shennongjia
forest area “trade offs” [sic].

It is possible, the APEBC
explains, that Probe International might have been satisfied by the
complementary study, which APEBC maintains included an evaluation of
the socio-economic and environmental impacts. But the complementary
study was canceled by the Canadian government after the Tiananmen
Square massacre, leaving these issues unresolved, and leaving CYJV’s
recommendation to proceed with the dam unsupported.

The APEBC concludes by echoing the OIQ: “The
criticisms expressed by Probe and their experts in their publication
Damming The Three Gorges, APEBC says, “tended to be opinions, not fully
supported or documented, and the discipline process of the Association
is not structured to arbitrate diverse opinions.”

Ontario Response

Meanwhile
in Ontario, after a two-year investigation, the Association of
Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO) concluded that “there are in
this case varying opinions among competent, experienced and reputable
experts as to whether the Feasibility Study reflects an acceptable
standard of engineering practice on the part of the CYJV in general,
and Acres in particular.”

Having said this, however, the APEO rejects Probe
International’s complaint of negligence, professional misconduct, and
incompetence, on the ground that Acres International followed
“generally accepted international engineering standards” as standards
which “Ontario professional engineers practising outside Canada may
base their work on.” But the APEO fails to define those “generally
accepted international engineering standards,” or to identify who sets
them and who enforces them, citing instead widespread support for the
Feasibility Study from “reputable sources.” Nor does the APEO explain
how those “generally accepted international engineering standards”
could deviate so dramatically from the standards of Ontario, Britain
and the U.S., and the standards advocated by the U.S. Commission on
Large Dams and the International Commission on Large Dams, which Probe
International argued were not met by CYJV in its work on the Three
Gorges Water Control Feasibility Study.

Probe International intends to appeal the decision by the APEO.

Continue to End Notes