Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-1.1
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Purpose: To approve the agenda for the meeting.
Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)
That:
a) the agenda, as presented to the meeting at C-476-1.1, Appendix A be approved; and
b) the Chair be authorized to suspend the regular order of business.
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS Secretariat Co-ordinator
Appendices:
Appendix A 476th Council meeting agenda
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-1.1
Appendix A
Agenda
476th Meeting of Council of
Professi onal Engi neers Ontario
Date:
Time:
Thursday reception 5:30; di nner 6:00; meeting 7 :00 p.m. 9:00 p.m.
Friday 9 :00 a.m. 4:00 p.m.
Place:
PEO Offices
40 Sheppard Av enue West, 8th floor
Toronto, Ontario
Thursday, March 1
Item #
Subject
Type
PLENARY SESSION
PEO Program Review of the four PEO programs that OSPE challenged to
ensure they are consistent with and flow from PEOs mandate:
Mentorship Program
Discussion
Friday, March 2
Item #
Subject
Type
Call to Order
1.
AGENDA
1.1 Approval of Agenda
1.2 Report of the President
2.
PRIORITY ISSUES
Decision
Information
3.
4.
5.
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Information
Information
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Information
Information
CONSENT AGENDA
5.1 Minutes 225th Executive Committee Meeting October 11
Decision
Decision
Decision
Direction
6.
7.
5.5 Committee /Task Force Terms of Reference, Work Plans and Human
Resources Plans
Decision
Decision
Decision
Information
Information
Information
Information
Information
6.6 Correspondence
Information
Information
Information
Information
MEMBER SUBMISSION
7.1 Letter from Ray Linseman, chair, Thousand Islands Chapter
Discussion
For longer term planning a three-year calendar is provided on the next pages.
Pl en ary S e s si o n s - Th u r s d ay s r ec ep t ion /d i n n e r 5: 3 0 p . m. ; s e s si on 7 : 00 p .m . 9: 00 p . m. ;
Cou n ci l m ee tin g s Fri d ay s 9 :0 0 a .m . 4: 00 p . m.
Th e re i s n o p l en a ry s e s si on sc h e d u l ed o n Th u r s d ay , Ap ri l 1 3, 20 1 2 d u e to th e a ll d ay Co m mi tt e e
Ch a ir s Work s h op b ei n g h el d th e sa m e d a y .
h e ld in co n ju n cti on wi t h th e O rd e r o f H on ou r A wa rd s Gal a ( Fr id ay , Ma y 11 th ) an d An n u a l G en er al
Me et in g ( Sat u rd ay , M ay 12 th ) T oro n to Mar ri o tt E ato n Cen tr e H ot el, T oron t o
2012
January
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
February
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
March
F
3
10
17
24
S
4
11
18
25
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
1
8
15
22
29
April
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
May
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
June
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
July
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
August
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
September
F
3
10
17
24
31
S
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
October
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
November
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
December
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
PEOoffice Thursday Dinner5:30pm
PlenarySession7pmto9pm
Fridaymeeting94
May1112 Policyconference,OOH&
AGMTorontoMarriotEatonsCentre
June2123Rousseau,ON
Nov.17CLC&OPEA
PEOExecutiveCommittee
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.Ottawa
MayAGMNiagaraFalls
June Retreat (EngineersCanada
Directorsonly)Cambridge,ON
Oct.14Ottawa
ConstituentAssociationsAGMs
Feb.1618Edmundston,NB
March29Whitehorse,YK
April1921Edmonton,AB
May34Saskatoon,SK
Jun78Gander,NL
Jun1415Montreal,QC
Sept.1314Wolfville,NS
Oct.2527Victoria,BC
Oct.2527Winnipeg,MB
Nov.21Yellowknife,NWT
Nov.2930Charlottetown,PEI
Page 1
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
2013
January
February
March
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
3
10
17
24
31
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
T
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
T
5
12
19
26
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
September
November
F
4
11
18
25
7
14
21
28
June
T
2
9
16
23
30
October
M
7
14
21
28
S
4
11
18
25
August
6
13
20
27
W
1
8
15
22
29
July
M
1
8
15
22
29
F
3
10
17
24
31
May
T
4
11
18
25
7
14
21
28
S
2
9
16
23
April
S
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
December
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
PEOoffice Thursday Dinner5:30pm
PlenarySession7pmto9pm
Fridaymeeting94
Apr2627 Policy conference,OOH&
AGMTBD
June2123TBD
Nov.17CLC&OPEATBD
PEOExecutiveCommittee
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.Ottawa
May29Jun1AGMYellowknife,NWT
June Retreat (EngineersCanada
Directorsonly)TBD
Oct.14Ottawa
ConstituentAssociationsAGMs
Feb2122Fredericton,NB
March28Whitehorse,YK
April1820Calgary,AB
May24Regina,SK
Jun67Montreal,QC
Jun1314St.John,NL
Sept.1920Halifax,NS
Oct.1719Vancouver,BC
Oct.2426Winnipeg,MB
Nov.20Yellowknife,NWT
Nov.2829Charlottetown,PEI
Page 2
2014
January
S
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
February
F
3
10
17
24
31
S
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
October
M
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
T
2
9
16
23
30
T
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
S
4
11
18
25
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
September
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
T
4
11
18
25
November
F
3
10
17
24
31
6
13
20
27
June
August
5
12
19
26
July
M
7
14
21
28
May
6
13
20
27
S
1
8
15
22
April
S
6
13
20
27
March
December
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
PEOoffice Thursday Dinner5:30pm
PlenarySession7pmto9pm
Fridaymeeting94
Apr2526 Policyconference,OOH&
AGMTBD
June1921TBD
Nov.22CLC&OPEATBD
PEOExecutiveCommittee
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.2528Ottawa
May2124AGMTBD,NB
June Retreat (EngineersCanada
Directorsonly)TBD
Oct.14Ottawa
ConstituentAssociationsAGMs
Feb2021Moncton,NB
March27Whitehorse,YK
April1820Calgary,AB
May12Saskatoon,SK
Jun67Montreal,QC
Jun1213St.John,NL
Sept.1819Halifax,NS
Oct.1618Kelowna,BC
Oct.2324Winnipeg,MB
Nov.19Yellowknife,NWT
Nov.2829Charlottetown,PEI
Page 3
C-476
The Executive Committee recommended that Council review PEOs authority to carry out the
four programs OSPE challenged in June 2011.
The review will take place at the plenary session of the Council meeting in March.
1. Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (OCEPP) In November 2010, Council
directed that OCEPP be operated as a PEO department and focus on regulatory matters.
2. Government Liaison Program (GLP) the program positions PEO on the same side of the
table with government to solve public interest issues related to practice of professional
engineering. Activities deal with numerous regulatory issues such as Building Code,
Electrical Safety Authority regulations, regulations regarding environmental matters,
practice standards, etc.
3. Mentorship Program - PEO runs this program through its chapters which set up and
arrange for individual mentors to guide mentees through the licensing process.
4. Ontario Professional Engineers Awards Gala the annual gala is held every November to
recognition of outstanding achievement in practice of professional engineering. OSPE
handles many of the logistical arrangements and PEO manages the awards committee
and prepares the award citations and vignettes.
The review will examine PEOs authority, from the Professional Engineers Act, to carry out the
following each of programs. In addition, the review will examine section 40 of By-law No. 1
which sets out:
Application of Funds and Administration of Property
40. The Council may approve, or may authorize or provide for the application of the
funds of the association in payment of all expenses properly incurred in the conduct
of the affairs of the association including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing:
(a) payment of all expenses incurred in connection with duties imposed on the
association under the Act, including expenses in connection with applications
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-1.2
PRESIDENTS REPORT
Purpose: To inform Council of the recent activities of the President.
Motion(s) to consider:
none required
President Adams will provide an oral report on his recent PEO activities.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-2.1
Prepared by: Bernard Ennis, P. Eng. Director, Policy and Professional Affairs
Motion Sponsor: Denis Dixon, P. Eng.
1. Need for PEO Action
The current Professional Engineering Practice Guideline was issued in 1988 and slightly
revised in 1998. The new edition of the Guideline has been updated to include additional
information on specific practice questions that is commonly requested by practitioners and
the public.It has also been revised to reflect changes in the Professional Engineers Act and
Regulations that have been implemented since 1998.
Standards and Guidelines Development Coordinator will work with PEO Coummunications
Department to prepare the draft document for publication as a PEO Guideline.
Articles will be published in Engineering Dimensions and notices posted on the website to
notified PEO members about the publication of this document.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Process
Followed
Council
Identified
Review
Identify who is to be consulted; how they will be consulted and what kind of
response is expected.
N/A
Actual
Motion
Review
5. Appendices
Appendix A Professional Engineering Practice Guideline
Appendix B Consultation Comments for the Professional Engineering Practice Guideline
C-476-2.1
Appendix A
GUIDELINE
Professional Engineering
Practice
Andy Bowers, P. Eng.
Colin Cantlie, P. Eng.
Vincent Chu, P. Eng.
Denis Dixon, P. Eng.
Allen Jones, P. Eng.
Roger Jones, P. Eng.
Les Mitelman, P. Eng.
Colin Moore, P. Eng.
Richard Piatti, P. Eng.
Brian Ross, P. Eng.
Daniel Tung, P. Eng.
Fanny Wong, P. Eng.
Notice: The Professional Standards Committee has a policy of reviewing guidelines every five years to
determine if the guideline is still viable and adequate. However, practice bulletins may be issued from
time to time to clarify statements made herein or to add information useful to those professional engineers
engaged in this area of practice. Users of this guideline who have questions, comments or suggestions
for future amendments and revisions are invited to submit these to PEO using the form provided in
Appendix 3.
January 2012
CONTENTS
1. PEO Mandate and Criteria for Guidelines .................. 3
2. Preface ................................................................... 4
3. Purpose and Scope of Guideline ............................... 4
4. Introduction ............................................................. 4
5. Characteristics of a Profession .................................... 5
6. The Engineering Profession in Ontario ....................... 5
7. Licence
6
8. Professional Responsibility .......................................... 8
9. The Engineers Duty to Report
9
10. Rules of Practice ....................................................... 11
10.1 Use of the Professional Engineers Seal
10.2 Relations with Client or Employer
10.3 Due Diligence
10.4 Report Writing
10.5 Giving Opinions
10.6 Communications
10.7 Retaining Documents
10.8 Confidential Information
10.9 Volunteering
10.10 Data Gathering at the Beginning of a Project
11. Conflicts of Interest ................................................... 19
12. Certificate of Authorization ....................................... 20
13. Part-time Entrepreneurship ...................................... 21
14. Advertising ................................................................ 21
15. Professional Standards ............................................. 17
16. Practice Guidelines .................................................... 18
17. Professional Misconduct
18. Code of Ethics for the Profession
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
1.
4.
5.
This guideline is not intended to establish a one method of practice for all approach to the
practice of professional engineering. This guideline is not intended to replace a practitioners
professional judgment when providing professional engineering services. Subject to
provisions in the guideline that incorporate professional conduct requirements or legal
requirements, a decision by a practitioner not to follow the guideline will not, in and of itself,
indicate that a member has failed to maintain an acceptable standard of work. Following the
guideline may not ensure that a member has provided services conforming to an acceptable
standard established by other criteria such as contracts or particular industry standards.
Determining whether a practitioner has provided quality service will depend upon the
circumstances of each case.
See Appendix 4 for a list of PEO professional practice guidelines and standards.
2.
PREFACE
A review of the previous edition of this document by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) staff
found that it contained out-of-date references, information covered by other guidelines, and was
lacking in guidance on several generic practice matters. PEO staff, assisted by the Professional
Standards Committee, prepared this revised document. Following consultation with
stakeholders and vetting by PEO legal counsel, a final draft of this document was submitted to
the Professional Standards Committee for approval on October 18, 2011. The guideline was
approved by Council at its meeting on December 13, 2011.
3.
Through its guidelines, PEO strives to enhance the professionalism of its members and assist
practitioners in describing their proper professional relationships with clients, employers and the
public. This guideline is intended to provide practitioners and the public with a better
understanding of the engineering profession, the means by which it is governed, and to explain
the role, jurisdiction and purpose of Professional Engineers Ontario. It covers a wide variety of
topics of general interest to the engineering profession in order to:
Note: References in this guideline to professional engineers apply equally to temporary licence
holders, provisional licence holders and limited licence holders.
4.
INTRODUCTION
This Guideline for Professional Engineering Practice has been prepared by the Professional
Standards Committee of Professional Engineers Ontario. This document supersedes the
original Professional Practice Guideline published in 1993.
The definition of the practice of professional engineering is set out in Section 1 of the
Professional Engineers Act. This definition sets out a three-part test for determining whether an
act is within the practice of professional engineering:
Is it an act of designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or
supervising?
Does it involve the safeguarding of life, health, property and the public welfare?
Does it require the application of engineering principles?
If the work done by a person meets all three tests, then the person is practising professional
engineering. The definition applies to all situations where this particular combination of
intellectual activity, societal protection and methodology exists regardless of whether the
position is in industry, government or consulting.
Professional practice is defined as the carrying out of those activities defined in Section 1 of the
Professional Engineers Act in a manner that is consistent with the values of the profession. The
norms of professional practice are outlined by the Council of Professional Engineers Ontario.
This committee, through its subcommittees, works with professional engineers and external
stakeholders to describe the role of and the reasonable expectations on practitioners engaged
in specific engineering activities.
5.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A PROFESSION
A true profession is an occupation possessing specialized skills and knowledge that are
exercised for the benefit of society. Occupational groups gain professional status by
demonstrating that persons with specialized knowledge and techniques provide a service that is
unique and more likely to serve the interests of society than others with different training. The
professionals role can only become clear when members of a profession determine what
distinguishes their activities from those of other occupational groups. Once those differences
are clear the profession can strengthen its position by emphasizing its members expertise in
those particular areas of knowledge and skill.
Engineering knowledge and skills are the result of tested research and experience, and the
engineering profession has a well developed organization for the development and
dissemination of knowledge and professional ideals. In order to properly carry out the
professional services they undertake practitioners are expected to obtain, through disciplined
academic training and experience, and maintain a level of skill and knowledge consistent with
the demands of their area of practice. Every profession has well formulated standards of
admission in order to ensure that practitioners have been properly trained before entry.
Professional practitioners are expected to take responsibility and be accountable for their work.
It is interesting to note that engineering is the only profession where the primary responsibility is
to the third party, the public. Ultimately, this overriding consideration subordinates the
engineers obligations to the client or employer. Practitioners are also expected to demonstrate
behaviour that will encourage clients, employers and the public to trust the practitioners
discretion and judgment. In order to foster this behaviour professional engineers are expected to
comply with a code of ethics. Compliance with the code ensures that practitioners exercise a
high standard of care in their work and are aware of their role in protecting or promoting the
interests of the public.
6.
The engineering profession in Ontario is governed by the Professional Engineers Act R.S.0.
1990, Chapter P.28 and its subordinate regulations R. R. 0. 1990 Regulation 941 and Regulation
260/08.
The Act defines the practice of professional engineering and establishes Professional Engineers
Ontario (PEO) as the regulatory body responsible for regulating the practice of professional
engineering and governing persons and organizations carrying out work that falls within PEO
jurisdiction. The primary mandate of any professional regulatory body is to protect the public
from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners. In order to carry out this function PEO is
granted powers to license qualified individuals, discipline licence holders who are found guilty of
incompetence or professional misconduct as defined in O. Reg. 941/90, and enforce
compliance with the licensing requirements of the Act.
5
LICENCE
In most situations a person requires a licence issued by Professional Engineers Ontario in order
to practise professional engineering in Ontario. A licence is the granting of permission to
perform an act that is otherwise legally prohibited. In the case of engineering, Section 12 of the
Professional Engineers Act first creates a ban on certain activities defined in Section 1 and then,
by creating an exclusion to the ban, extends permission to licence holders to perform any act
covered by the definition of professional engineering within the range of permission granted by
the licence.
However, not everyone performing work identified as the practice of professional engineering
requires a licence as the Professional Engineers Act includes the following exceptions to
licensure:
a person working under the supervision of a professional engineer taking responsibility
for the work does not need to be licensed.
a tool and die designer does not need a licence.
Licence Classifications
There are four licence classifications provided by the Professional Engineers Act: licence,
temporary licence, provisional licence and limited licence. Each licence classification has
specific admission qualifications found in sections 33, 43, 44.1(1), and 46, O. Reg. 941/90. The
temporary, provisional and limited licence permit restricted practice under conditions given in
sections 44.(1), 44.1(2) and 45, O. Reg. 941/90. A practitioners licence classification can be
identified by the inscription on their seal. The limited licence seal also contains a description of
the restricted area of professional engineering in which that holder can practice.
According to the Act, "professional engineer" means a person who is granted a licence or a
temporary licence by Professional Engineers Ontario. Professional engineers generally have an
unrestricted right to practise professional engineering in Ontario though terms, conditions and
limitations may be imposed on a practitioners licence by the registration or discipline processes.
This means they can practise in any area of engineering as long as they are competent to do
so. Practitioners are expected to self-police their activities and accept assignments for work only
if they have the requisite knowledge and experience or can acquire the necessary knowledge in
a reasonable amount of time.
Professional engineers licensed in other jurisdictions who are not residents of Canada and
decide not to obtain a full licence but intend to provide engineering services for a project in
Ontario can obtain a temporary licence.1 The holder of a temporary licence is required to
collaborate with a professional engineer licensed in Ontario. The collaborator must ensure that
the engineering work prepared by the temporary licence holder complies with Canadian and
Ontario codes, standards, and laws governing the work. The practitioners role as a collaborator
does not include contributing to the design, carrying out site inspections or any other
engineering role. Of course, the practitioner can arrange to do these tasks but doing so would
be in addition to carrying out the compliance review of the design that the collaborator is
required to do.
Section 44(2), O. Reg. 941, states that all final drawings, reports, and other documents
prepared by the holder of the temporary licence must be co-signed and sealed by the
collaborator. As in all multi-discipline situations where multiple seals are affixed to a document
each engineer is taking professional responsibility only for the portion of the work s/he actually
performed. In the case of a collaborator that responsibility is generally only insuring that the
temporary licence holder has done work in accordance with appropriate standards, codes, laws.
The collaborator should ascertain what standards, codes or laws apply to the project, make the
designer aware of these, and check that the designer has used these in designing the work. If
the design is based on foreign codes the engineer should compare these to those applicable in
Ontario and determine whether the foreign codes are acceptable. If not, the collaborator should
inform the designer of the discrepancies and direct him/her to make changes. Of course, if the
collaborator makes the changes then he or she is now responsible for the design work or at
least for that portion of the design that is changed.
Since collaborators are required only to verify that the work conforms to the applicable codes,
standards and laws they should not review the drawings and other engineering documents for
technical accuracy. The design is the responsibility of the temporary licence holder. The two
practitioners should apply their seals with notes indicating this difference of responsibility. The
temporary licence holder and the collaborator should also have a written agreement that defines
in detail what each party is providing to the work.
The limited licence is available to individuals who, as a result of thirteen or more years of
specialized experience, have developed competence in a particular area of professional
engineering. The practice of professional engineering by the holder of a limited licence must be
limited to the services specified in the limited licence (see section 45(1), O. Reg. 941/90). This
licence is appropriate for technologists or scientists who need to take responsibility for work that
is generally considered to be within the practice of professional engineering.
Though the holder of a limited licence is allowed to work without supervision by a professional
engineer and to take professional responsibility for his or her own work, the holder of a limited
licence cannot be the holder of a Certificate of Authorization and, therefore, cannot engage in
independent practice.
A provisional licence may be issued to an applicant for a professional engineer licence who has
satisfied all of PEOs licensing requirements except for the minimum 12 months of verifiable and
acceptable engineering experience in a Canadian jurisdiction. See section 44.1(2) of O. Reg.
941 for conditions applying to a provisional licence.
1
At the time of printing there is a legislative proposal to allow such applicants to obtain other categories of licences.
Project Engineer changed to Project Manager, Project Coordinator, Project Analyst, Project
Leader, Project Operator, or Project Specialist.
Software Engineer changed to Software Developer, Software Designer, or Software Analyst.
Technical Engineer changed to Technical Officer
Junior Engineer changed to Engineering Trainee or Junior Designer
Use of the title "Engineering Intern" or its accepted abbreviation "EIT" is allowed for those who
are registered in PEO's Engineer Internship Training Program. Titles such as Junior Engineer,
Graduate Engineer, and Assistant Engineer are not acceptable. Furthermore, engineering
graduates who are not professional engineers may utilize their engineering degree followed by
their name, e.g. "B.A.Sc.", or "B.Eng."
Unlicensed persons may utilize their department name, e.g., Metallurgical Process Engineer to
Metallurgical Process Engineering, Quality Assurance Engineer to Quality Assurance
Engineering. However, the titles Engineering Specialist, Engineering Consultant and
Engineering Professional, may only be used by holders of a full licence or temporary licence.
Consulting Engineer may only be used by individuals so designated by PEO Council, and then
only when they are currently engaged in the independent practice of professional engineering.
This rule applies to all variations of Consulting Engineer, such as Structural Consulting
Engineer.
Apart from the abbreviation LEL, Limited Licence holders may only use titles acceptable for
unlicensed persons
8.
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
for pointing out all of societys faults. Instead, they are expected to report only on those issues
that come to their attention during the course of their professional practice. This is why
references to the duty to report emphasize clients and employers; rarely would professional
engineers have sufficient awareness and knowledge of situations outside of their usual practice
that they could be compelled to report them. And, unless engineers have the appropriate
authority to make changes or order work, their duty is only to report, not to solve the problem.
Often, the responsibility for solving the problem rests with someone else. The engineer is
required only to make that person aware of the situation.
What should engineers do if, in the course of carrying out their work, they discover situations
that endanger safety or the public welfare? Because each situation is different, engineers
should judge how to proceed based on the particular facts of each case. In most cases,
however, here is how you should try to deal with any situation you believe may endanger the
safety or welfare of the public:
1. Assure yourself that the problem is real and that you have correctly assessed the
potential harm that might result. Find and prepare all supporting information, such as
legislation, codes, practice guides, calculations, and technical manuals, that will
reinforce your opinion.
2. Determine whom you should inform. Because a professional engineer has obligations of
fairness and loyalty to clients and employers and is also obliged to act as a faithful
trustee or agent, initial disclosure usually is given to the practitioners employer or client.
3. Advise the client or employer of the problem and suggest that remedial action should be
taken. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that the person is aware of the danger that
you believe might result from a failure to deal with the situation.
4. After a reasonable length of time, follow up with the client or employer to see if
appropriate action has been taken. The engineer should advise the client or employer
that, because of the engineers duty under the Professional Engineers Act, it will be
necessary to take this matter to appropriate authorities if the client or employer does not
take action.
5. It might also be helpful to review the situation with at least one independent engineer to
obtain an opinion on the harm that might arise from the situation, if not corrected. This
will provide the engineer with some corroboration and support. The other engineers
might also provide suggestions on what action might be taken. But be aware of your duty
to maintain confidentiality about an employers or clients business. If possible, limit your
discussions to in-house engineers. If you cant find in-house engineers, find engineers
who can be considered impartial third parties.
6. In the absence of a resolution and where the situation is serious enough to warrant your
ongoing concern, the matter should be escalated up the management chain. This should
not be done without first informing the initial contact. Reiterate that as a professional
engineer you are legally obliged to report a situation that, in your opinion, must be
corrected.
Because professional engineers have obligations both to their clients and to the public these
obligations will occasionally conflict. On one hand, engineers are obligated not to disclose
clients or employers confidential information and must avoid the use of such information to
10
clients or employers disadvantage. On the other hand, Article 72(2)(c), O. Reg. 941, provides
that failure to report a situation that an engineer believes may endanger the safety or welfare of
the public would constitute professional misconduct on the part of the engineer.
Whistle-blowing
Sometimes professional engineers find that their advice is not accepted and that the client or
employer has no intention of correcting the situation. If the engineer firmly believed that, after
exhausting all internal resources, the health and safety of any person is being, or is imminently,
endangered it may be necessary to report these concerns to some external authority such as a
designated regulatory body, a government ministry or ombudsman. Only in exceptionally rare
cases would going directly to the media or a private watchdog agency be justified. Because
professional engineers have obligations both to client and employers they must exercise
discretion in bringing the situation to the attention of persons outside the business of their
employers or clients.
As many people know this is a risky proposition since the whistle-blower is violating moral and
legal obligations owed to the employer or client. No one should take this step without seriously
considering whether it is necessary. If an engineer has reported the situation through the entire
internal management chain then most people would agree that he or she has fulfilled the duty to
report. But like civil disobedience, whistleblowing is sometimes the morally correct response to a
intolerable situation, especially if people are in danger.
Any engineer faced with this decision may also contact PEO for guidance. The association can
provide advice to a professional engineer who is dealing with an uncooperative or willfully
negligent client or employer.
Reporting incompetence or misconduct
There is no explicit requirement in the Professional Engineers Act that requires PEO
licence-holders to report to the association apparent breaches of the rules of professional
conduct by other practitioners. The Act refers only to the duty to report unsafe situations or
situations that are detrimental to the public welfare. Where an engineers incompetence or
negligence creates a situation that meets these criteria, engineers who notice need deal only
with that unsafe situation, in the manner described above. Since the duty to report refers only to
situations rather than people, they are not compelled to report the individual to PEO. However, if
an engineer is concerned that the incompetence or misconduct exhibited by another engineer is
extreme and warrants action by the association, the engineer should make a complaint, just like
any member of the public. Since the professions reputation can be adversely affected by any
incidence of incompetence or misconduct, members of the profession who are aware of such
behaviour should consider reporting it to be a prudent and practical decision.
10.
10.1
Every practitioner is issued a seal with their licence. Use of the seal is governed by Section 53,
O. Reg. 941 which requires every engineer, regardless of whether or not they are listed on a
11
Certificate of Authorization, to seal documents prepared or checked by them that are issued to
the public as part of a professional engineering service. PEO policies for acceptable use of the
seal are described in the Guideline for Use of the Professional Engineers Seal.
10.2
Managing client and employer expectations about the type and extent of services that can be
provided by the practitioner is crucial to the successful conclusion of any assignment.
Practitioners should serve their clients and employers with integrity and objectivity, making
every effort to carry out assigned activities in a professional manner. However, it is also
necessary to set realistic expectations about the kind of service the practitioner can provide and
how quickly this work can be done.
Professional service begins with a full understanding of the clients or employers needs. PEO
recommends that, in order to avoid misunderstandings later, agreements between clients and
practitioners pertaining to the provision of engineering services should be put into writing. The
agreement should, at a minimum:
identify the client organization and the contact to whom the practitioner will report;
specify the fees and expenses to be charged to the client;
declare any ongoing assurances or guarantees to be given by either party;
declare any limitations to liabilities or services provided by the practitioner;
describe any information that the client will provide and in what form, and provide a
schedule of when this information will be released;
contain a scope of work detailing the services the practitioner is expected to provide;
contain a list of items to be delivered by the practitioner;
provide a schedule for completion of various phases of the work, submission of
deliverables and payment of fees;
identify any remedies for breach of contract by non-payment or by early termination of
services by either party;
contain a right to terminate the agreement in appropriate circumstances.
Conflicts arising out of poor business relations or undefined terms in the professional service
agreement can expose a practitioner to a complaint of professional misconduct.
Make sure the agreement calls for the client and third parties, such as contractors, to inform the
practitioner of problems, changes to project definition, at the earliest opportunity. Similarly, the
practitioner should agree to inform the client, in writing and as soon as possible, of any situation
that will delay the project or require alterations to the scope of work.
In many situations, the professional engineer acts as an agent for the client or employer.
Though clients and employers retain their legal responsibilities, the professional engineer acting
as an agent undertakes certain tasks on behalf of his or her client and therefore is responsible
for fulfilling those responsibilities. For instance, the practitioner may be asked to handle
negotiations with a supplier on behalf of the client. By taking on this task the practitioner is
standing in for the client and often can bind the client. These responsibilities should be clearly
identified in the contract between engineer and client or employer.
12
Practitioners should not accept assignments where the terms of reference and/or the project
budget do not allow them to provide a service commensurate with their professional obligations
to the client and the public.
Practitioners should accept only those assignments that they are qualified to undertake on the
basis of their knowledge of the client's or employers needs and their ability to perform the
specific assignment.
Practitioners should ensure that employers and clients understand that some situations may
demand skills or knowledge that the practitioners do not possess, and that clients or employers
may need to retain or pay for those specialist services the practitioners judge to be necessary. If
the client is unwilling to retain or pay for necessary specialist services the practitioner must
determine whether this denial is sufficient cause for refusing the commission.
Practitioners should also ensure that their prior commitments are not put at risk because of
unexpected or unreasonable time demands caused by taking on new work. It is the
practitioners duty to set conditions beforehand and have arrangements made to meet time
exigencies.
10.3
Due Diligence
Report Writing
The report is a record of the engineering service provided that may be referenced by persons
13
unfamiliar with the project and, possibly, with engineering work in general. Therefore, the report
must clearly identify the project, the time period in which the service occurred, the date on which
the report was completed, the parties to whom the report is addressed, and the engineer(s) who
prepared and take(s) responsibility for the work. The report must provide contact information for
the engineering firm, should identify the client and explain the terms of reference for the project.
The practitioner should explain what work was done and how this service fulfilled the objectives
set by the client.
Any report prepared as part of a professional engineering service should be a complete
description of the work taken and the opinions or directions made on the basis of that work. All
engineering reports need to contain the following:
the purpose of the report
a clear description of the work involved to create the report
specific identification of drawings, blueprints, photographs, documents, manuals and
other reference material used
references to legislation, standards, or guidelines that have relevance to the work
where judgments or opinions are made, details of the reasoning that lead to the reports
conclusion or findings
identification of all responsible persons contributing to the report
professional engineers seal
The engineer may express an opinion in the conclusion of the report; however, it is important to
show how the opinion was formed from the data presented. If this is not possible, the engineer
should clearly state that no final opinion was reached, and the reasons why. The practitioner
must assess the information gathered during investigations and analyses to determine if it is
sufficient to form a conclusion. If it is, the conclusion may be written; it should be carefully
worded, so that it may be read in a positive sense. The use of unnecessary disclaimers can
dilute, if not negate, the effect of the report, but the wording should accurately reflect the degree
of certainty of the engineers opinion.
It is important to ensure that the client is not misled by an overly favourable report or by the
practitioners failure to give proper emphasis to adverse considerations. To ensure clarity in
reports, practitioners should refrain from using subjective appraisals and qualitative language
such as good condition or severely compromised unless these terms have specific definitions
that will be understood by most people familiar with the work or are defined in the report.
Instead, practitioners should use quantitative and verifiable language; that is, practitioners
should express their observations and conclusions in objective, preferably numerical, terms.
For some projects, the client may request the practitioner to provide preliminary reports at
various stages. These preliminary reports serve only one purpose: to inform the client about the
progress of the investigation. As the investigation is not yet complete, no conclusions of any
kind should be included in the report.
Before preparing the final2 report, the practitioner may discuss the facts and conclusions with
the client, to obtain appropriate guidance about what should be included. The professional
engineer must accept final responsibility for the report, and thus must not permit the client to
exert undue influence on its final form. Nevertheless, it is important that the professional
engineer clearly understand the precise issues the client wishes to have included in the report.
2
Final in this context means final for the purpose intended. See the Guideline for the Use of the
Professional Engineers Seal for more information on this distinction.
14
A pre-completion meeting may tend to reduce the need for repeated revisions to cover all issues
of importance to the client.
An engineering report may be read by people who do not have significant technical knowledge.
Therefore, the language and writing style should be simple and direct, and the use of
abbreviations and technical terms should be avoided where possible. Care should be taken to
observe the proper rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation. While the body of the report
must be simple, brief and couched in non-technical language, appendices intended to be read
by knowledgeable individuals can be included.
10.6
Giving Opinions
Communications
Practitioners should record all communications during a project in sufficient detail to be able to
recreate the events months or even years later. For this reason, emails or letters are preferable
to verbal communications. Since much of the communication happening during a project is
verbal, practitioners should become accustomed to keeping journals. Notes should be taken of
any conversations or meetings. Phone logs should be used to keep track of calls made and
attempted.
15
In any verbal communication, the important parts of the conversation should be rephrased and
repeated back to the client, employer, contractor or other party for verification that each party
understands and agrees to points made. Clearly restating, at the end of a conversation, any
points of agreement and decisions, will help avoid miscommunications and the resulting
problems.
10.8
Retaining Documents
Professional engineers produce many documents in the course of carrying out their
assignments. Practitioners producing documents for clients often find that storage of these
documents is costly and want to dispose of them when they no longer serve a purpose to the
engineering firm. Unlike certain corporate documents, there is no legal requirement under the
Professional Engineers Act or other legislation stipulating how long engineering documents,
including drawings and specifications, must be retained. Generally the documents belong to the
person or firm that created them and that person or firm is at liberty to do with them as they see
fit. Each engineering organization can decide on its own rules for retaining and disposing of the
documents it produces.
However, a practitioner should always inform clients about the document retention policies
employed by the practitioners firm and confirm that this is acceptable to the client. The
practitioner should learn whether the client has special document requirements at the initial
meeting and these requirements should be specified in the agreement. This should include
obligations on the practitioner to protect, store or destroy documents related to the project.
At the conclusion of a project, the practitioner should provide the client with sufficient copies of
all final documents either in hard-copy or electronic format. The number of copies and the
format should be stated in the client-practitioner agreement or contract.
10.9
Confidential Information
Section 77 (3) of O. Reg. 941/90 covers confidentiality, making it clear that professional
engineers should not divulge any information sensitive to their clients or employers business to
third parties unless expressly or implicitly authorized by the client or employer, or required by
law to do so. Unreserved communication between practitioner, clients or employers is essential
to effective delivery of professional services. Clients/employers must feel that all
correspondence between themselves and their engineers are completely secure. They are
entitled to assume this to be the case, without making any request as to the maintenance of
confidentiality. They are also entitled to assume that the duty of confidentiality will survive the
professional commission that required it, and continue indefinitely after the termination of
contracts or relationships.
In the preparation of material for technical publications, practitioners should be particularly
careful to avoid inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and should seek approval or
consent of the affected parties before submitting any client-specific information for publication.
Professional engineers are also expected to avoid the use of information for the benefit of
themselves or a third party, or to clients or another practitioners disadvantage. Engineers are
expected to decline employment or a commission that would require disclosure of such
information.
16
Generally speaking, employers are able to protect their proprietary rights as confidential
information, while employees are free to use the skill, expertise and knowledge that have been
acquired during employment. Employed engineers may be concerned as to the precise
obligation upon them when changing employment within their field. It is generally considered
that engineers may apply in the new position any general knowledge or expertise gained in the
old position, as long as it falls into a state of the art category. However, engineers are not
entitled to apply in the new position information gained in the old position that is of a proprietary
nature and considered to fall into the category of trade secrets.
For example, an engineer works for company X, which is in the business of mineral exploration.
The engineer is responsible for compiling and analyzing data regarding drilling leading to
determination of mineral reserves. The engineer, in the course of employment, gains skill and
experience in analyzing data for sites within this particular geological formation. The practitioner
also acquires confidential information regarding mineral reserves on land worked by X. The
engineer then leaves the employ of company X and joins a competitor company Y, which
proceeds to buy land adjoining the property based on the engineers knowledge of confidential
information. Though the engineer can apply the specialized knowledge and skills learned at X to
carry out analysis of the site, revealing the confidential information to Y is a breach of an
outstanding obligation to the previous employer.
Since practitioners, in the course of their assignments, may need to discuss aspects of the
projects with third parties they should ask clients to stipulate which disclosures need to be kept
confidential. It may well be worthwhile for professional engineers to make this distinction clear to
their clients in certain situations. This stipulation should be included in the agreement for
services or employment contract.
Occasionally, a client or employer may wish to keep secret a dangerous or potentially
dangerous situation. There should be no doubt however as to how a professional engineer must
act since all professional engineers are obligated to regard the practitioners duty to public welfare as paramount. For information on how to proceed in these cases, including a discussion of
the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality, see Section 9, Duty to Report. Practitioners who
find themselves in this circumstance should seek legal advice before contravening the duty of
confidentiality.
For example, a practitioner may be asked to sign a document that prevents the engineer from
discussing the contents of the engineers report with anyone other than the client or the clients
lawyer under any condition. The underlying threat is that any discussion regarding the report
with others would constitute a breach of contract. The practitioner completes the assignment
and in the report strongly recommends certain actions be taken by the client with respect to the
adverse environmental impact caused by the clients operations. After several months, no
actions have been taken by the client and the practitioner, concerned about the lack of
response, feels obliged to report the problem to somebody. The practitioner will need to
consider whether the paramount duty (Section 77(2)(i), O. Reg. 941/90) obligates the
practitioner to notify authorities of the clients environmental impacts in contravention of the
confidentiality agreement. It is prudent to reference such exceptions in any confidentiality
assurance provided.
PEO advises that practitioners who have knowledge of an employers proprietary information
and those who have signed non-disclosure, non-compete or similar agreements with their
employers should obtain legal advice before moving to a competing employer.
17
10.10
Volunteering
Data to be Obtained
At the beginning of any engineering project the practitioner should review, and become familiar
with, all information, such as standards, manuals, equipment and material specifications, and
contract documents, that is relevant to the project and is available to the practitioner. A search
of available technical literature, such as journals and trade magazines, for best practices and
experiences of other practitioners engaged in similar projects can be useful.
Practitioners should also become familiar with applicable federal and provincial regulations and,
for certain kinds of engineering work, municipal by-laws. All provincial statutes including the
Ontario Building Code and the regulations under the Ontario Water Resources Act, the
Environmental Protection Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act are available on the
E-laws website (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca). The Justice Laws Website
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca) is the online source of the consolidated Acts and regulations of
Canada. A list of regulations that affect many professional engineers is given in Appendix 2.
Preliminary research conducted at the beginning of a project may also involve reviewing
drawings and reports prepared by other professional engineers. According to the code of ethics
there is an obligation to notify these other practitioners only if they are still employed or retained
by the client.
ii)
Site Investigations
Many engineering projects depend on having accurate knowledge of the existing conditions
present at the site of the proposed project. Such information can only be obtained through a
personal inspection of the site by the practitioner or a delegate who is well informed
Practitioners should be sure to obtain equipment nameplate data; dimensions; detailed views of
parts of the site, structures and/or equipment; and samples, where appropriate.
In all cases, the information should be documented and preserved for future use. It is important
18
that all information be properly identified and recorded. Using the following list, the engineer
should record:
Often the engineer or client will arrange for tests of existing equipment, structure or site
materials such as soil or water to be carried out by an independent testing agency or by a
qualified tradesperson. Whenever possible, the engineer should witness these tests to ensure
that they are performed according to his or her detailed instructions, particularly when reliance
must be placed on a relatively small number of tests.
Though visiting a site is important, professional engineers have no right of trespass. They are
entitled to be in a public place, but can access private property only with the express permission
of the owner.
11.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Employers and clients must be able to trust professional practitioners. But trust cannot be
maintained when relevant information is not shared. The problem is to determine what
information is relevant and when it should be shared. This depends on being able to recognize
situations when you should tell clients and employers about an interest that might appear to
affect your judgment. Disclosure of conflicting interests does not mean you are admitting a lapse
in judgment will happen or that you are susceptible to pressure. Informing others of
circumstances that might negatively affect their interests simply recognizes their right to make
decisions about how to deal with these situations.
Although engineers have always been faced with conflict-of-interest situations, serious problems
have been rare. However, as society becomes more litigious and as issues become more
entwined, the problem of conflicts of interest is increasing for the professions generally,
including engineering. As professionals, engineers must be aware of what constitutes conflicts
of interest and how to avoid them.
Regulation 941/90 made under the Professional Engineers Act clearly describes the
circumstances that create a conflict of interests. In section 72(2) (i) it states that failure to make
prompt, voluntary and complete disclosure of an interest, direct or indirect, that might in any way
be, or be construed as, prejudicial to the professional judgment of the practitioner in rendering
service to the public, to an employer or to a client shall constitute professional misconduct. In
order to know when disclosure is appropriate a clear understanding of what causes a conflict of
interest in needed.
The two main features of a conflict of interest are (1) an interest of the practitioner or another
party who can benefit from the practitioners actions; and (2) an obligation or duty owed by the
practitioner to another person (usually client or employer) that can be adversely affected by any
action taken by the practitioner to secure that interest. The primary problem with a conflict of
interest is not the existence of competing interests but the fact that pursuing one or more of
these interests make it necessary to place duties secondary to the interests. In the case of
professional engineers, official duties include the paramount duty to protect life, health, property,
and public welfare in those situations that require the application of engineering principles.
19
Note that according to Section 72(2)(i), O. Reg. 941/90 the misconduct is a result of failing to tell
all the parties about an interest that conflicts, or may appear to conflict, with a duty; this implies
that having conflicting interests is not in itself an unethical or illegal act. After all, persons
sometimes end up facing conflicting interests in situations created by others.
For instance, an engineer who is the manager of quality assurance at Company C finds out that
the purchasing manager has contracted with a new supplier of precision plastic components;
unfortunately, the production manager at that firm is the QA managers spouse, a fact unknown
to everyone at Company C. The QA manager did not create this situation and though there is no
immediate pressure on this engineer, a potential conflict exists. As long as the QA manager
does not let circumstances sway professional judgment there is no wrongdoing. But can all
parties, even those unaware of the situation, be certain that there will be never be pressure to
accept a bad lot of plastic parts. The absence of wrongdoing by the QA manager does not
negate the obligation to report the situation to senior management at Company C.
The simplest and most effective way to deal with potential conflicts of interest is to be forthright
and talk to the appropriate parties about any circumstances that could reasonable lead those
parties to question the practitioners judgment. In most cases, there will either be no perceived
conflict (i.e., the parties are willing to accept the situation) or steps can be taken to eliminate the
possibility of one occurring.
By obtaining the agreement of all interested parties that there is no conflict of interest, engineers
reduce the possibility of litigation and charges of professional misconduct. If agreement cannot
be found, engineers have no option but to withdraw their services, thereby avoiding an
embarrassing investment in services by clients and eliminating the possibility of costly litigation.
Situations with the Potential for Conflict of Interest
The following examples illustrate some of the conflicts of interest that can confront professional
engineers who provide engineering services or products.
Case A.
Engineers can become involved in conflicts of interest most often when they are confronted with
the possibility of working for more than one client on the same project.
For example, a land owner hires a professional engineer to carry out a planning study regarding
the development of a piece of land. The engineer prepares the report, time passes, and the
developer does not request or need any further information from the engineer. The engineer is
paid for all the work done. The municipality in which the development exists is in need of an
engineering opinion that involves, among other things, this same land. It therefore contacts the
engineer who prepared the report for the developer because of the engineers expertise in the
type of work and previous experience with the municipality. The engineer is now faced with the
problem of possibly working for two different parties, each of whom is involved with the same
issue. What should the engineer do?
First, the engineer must recognize, before accepting an assignment from the second party, that
there is a potential conflict of interest. A prudent engineer will explain to the municipalitys
representative that a report was prepared for one of the land developers. The municipality may
well deem this to be a conflict and select another engineer for the assignment, thereby ending
the potential conflict. Alternatively, the municipality could decide that there is no conflict and be
willing to continue with the engineer. However, this does not resolve the engineers potential
20
conflict, because the developer, who is the first client, is not party to this decision. The engineer
should advise the municipality that the assignment will be accepted only if the developer agrees
in writing that there is no conflict. Once that written agreement is obtained, the second
assignment can be accepted. If no waiver is provided, the municipality may agree to retain the
professional engineer generally but obtain a different one for this specific land owner.
Case B.
In some circumstances, an engineer may be requested by one client to provide expert opinion
against another client for whom the engineer has regularly provided services in the past. The
dispute does not involve any services provided previously by the engineer, but is simply a case
of one loyal client retaining the engineer on a matter which involves another loyal client on the
other side. The engineer has no previous knowledge of the issue. Clearly, there is no conflict of
interest in this example, but there is an important business decision with which the engineer
must deal. Prudent engineers may decide to step away from this assignment.
Case C.
This case illustrates a conflict of interest that may occur in circumstances involving an situation
when practitioners are privy to privileged or confidential information.
Engineering firm ABC is retained to investigate the collapse of a large warehouse on behalf of
the contractor who constructed it. A senior engineer employed by ABC is assigned to this
project to work closely with the contractors lawyer and chief engineer. The owners of the
warehouse also retain an engineering expert through their lawyer. This engineer is employed by
XYZ Engineering and works closely with the owners lawyer and building manager.
During litigation investigations, ABCs senior engineer is assisted by a junior engineer who
carries out calculations, reviews drawings, and accompanies the senior engineer at the
occasional meeting with the contractors lawyer and chief engineer. Both experts prepare
reports, and litigation drags out for a considerable time. ABCs junior engineer is assigned to
several other projects in the interim, and years pass without any further participation on the
warehouse collapse.
Eventually, the junior engineer leaves ABC and is hired by XYZ to work in the bridge design
department. The contractors lawyer learns that XYZ has the junior engineer on staff. The
contractors lawyer applies to the court seeking a declaration that the firm XYZ is ineligible to
continue to act for the owners because it is now in possession of the contractors privileged and
confidential information through the junior engineer who worked on the case for the contractor.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that such a situation constitutes a conflict of interest
in certain instances involving law firms; it has been suggested that engineering firms could be
exposed to the same conditions. For instance, even though the junior engineer in this example
was never assigned to the warehouse case by new employer XYZ, there is a strong
presumption that confidences are shared among engineers; to the courts, this could be enough
to create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This situation is difficult to prepare for, yet can potentially be very damaging to the engineering
firms client, since years of effort could be devalued. This would leave the client very vulnerable
as the trial date approached. To avoid problems XYZ should either obtain the agreement of
ABC and its relevant clients or set up at the time of hiring a formal administrative separation of
the junior engineer form all information and discussions on the matter. Legal advice should be
sought.
21
Case D.
Engineers are often active outside their particular engineering activities, serving with numerous
charitable groups, boards of directors, political parties, etc. From time to time, while participating
in one of these non-engineering groups, circumstances will put engineers in positions where
they may be required to participate in the selection or appointment of an engineer to provide
engineering services to the non-engineering group. This could put engineers working with the
non-engineering group in a conflict of interest if their own engineering firm is in competition for
this assignment. Engineers should recognize this conflict and refuse to participate in the
selection process, after explaining the circumstances to the group they are serving.
Case E.
It is not uncommon for small municipalities that cannot afford to have a permanent municipal
engineer on staff to retain a consulting engineer to fill that role. That engineer, for all intents and
purposes, fulfills the duties of the municipal engineer. In this example, an engineer providing
these services to the municipality has another client who is in the land development business.
The developer requests the engineer to provide services on a project which the developer
intends to carry out on land owned within the municipality for which the engineer provides the
ongoing municipal engineering duties.
In this particular situation, municipal approvals are required. The engineer recognizes that there
is a potential conflict of interest if assistance were provided to the developer, because of the
confidential information the engineer has with respect to the ongoing work done previously for
the municipality. Also, in approving work carried out by the developer on behalf of the
municipality, the engineer would be trying to serve two clients on the same work and therefore
would be in further conflict. The engineer decides correctly to turn down the work for the
developer, so that the ongoing work for the municipality can be performed without such conflict.
Case F.
Engineer M works in a company XYZ, which develops and sells products and services to a wide
variety of customers. A friend N runs a small company ABC Services, which sells a specialized
product very different from those produced by XYZ. Engineer M has ideas for improving the
product sold by ABC Services and offers to assist N. Engineer M, develops the design on her
own time using resources made available at ABC Services by N.
Because the product is not a competitor for those sold by XYZ and M is not using XYZ
resources, Ms work on the product does not directly conflict with her obligations to her
employer. However, according to Sections 72(1)(i).4 and 77.5, O. Reg. 941/90, engineer M is
required to notify her employer about these moonlighting activities. This is necessary so that
the employer can be advised of circumstances that might appear to be a conflict if discovered in
the future. The best course of action is to make all parties aware of the situation at once and
allow the parties the opportunity to be assured that a conflict does not exist.
12.
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
The Professional Engineers Act requires that every individual offering professional engineering
services to the public hold a licence, and every business entity (sole proprietorship, partnership,
or corporation) offering services to the public hold a Certificate of Authorization granted by the
association. The term providing services to the public is used in O. Reg. 941/90 to denote
arrangements other than employment where the practitioner is undertaking engineering work for
the benefit of one or more persons. This can be as a sole proprietor, as an employee of an
22
engineering firm, or as an employee for a firm manufacturing custom designed equipment. The
public in this context is any person or corporate entity external to the provider of the
engineering services
The term "providing professional engineering services to the public" is used in conjunction with
two specific regulatory issues mentioned in the Professional Engineers Act: the sealing of
engineering documents and the need for a Certificate of Authorization. A person is providing
professional engineering services when he or she undertakes any of the activities considered to
be within the practice of professional engineering for the benefit of an employer or 'the public'.
For the purposes of all regulatory directives regarding engineering practice 'the public' is
considered to be anyone other than him/herself or the professional engineer's employer.
Therefore, a practitioner is providing professional engineering services to the public when the
work is done for the benefit of an individual, corporation, government or other entity that is not
the engineer's employer. Work done by a professional engineer solely for the employer's use
within the employer's domain is not considered to be work done for the public even if the
employer is a public institution such as provincial or municipal governments, school boards, or
crown corporations. However, if the work involves the practice of professional engineering it
must be done by or supervised by a professional engineer even if it is solely for the employer's
benefit. The only exception to this is the so-called "industrial exemption" described in Section
12(3) of the Act.3
This legal requirement is not eliminated in cases where the practitioner or business is providing
engineering services for free or as a volunteer (see Section 10.9).
Note that under the associations regulations, all certificate of authorization holders must either
carry professional liability insurance (unless exempted by Article 47.3.iii of O. Reg. 941), a
suitable equivalent insurance (Articles 47.3.i and 47.3.ii) or disclose to each and every client
that they are not insured. Nonconformance to this regulation is considered to be professional
misconduct.
13.
PART-TIME ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The term moonlighting is understood to describe any instance where individuals, who are
engaged full-time by an employer as their principal means of livelihood, offer or undertake
professional engineering services for a different and separate employer or client, conducting
such work in hours outside those of regular employment.
This practice has obvious possibilities of conflict of interest, if there is failure to fulfill the
obligations owed, either explicitly or implicitly, to the employer by contract of employment. The
Code of Ethics refers to this practice in article 77.5, O. Reg. 941/90, which outlines the
limitations that may be placed on such services.
It must be borne in mind that every entity, whether it is an individual, partnership or a
corporation, that offers or provides professional engineering services to the public, (i.e. to a
person or business other than the engineers employer) requires a Certificate of Authorization.
This applies to practitioners operating a part-time engineering business.
14.
ADVERTISING
Again, there is a legislative proposal at the time of printing to remove the industrial exemption.
23
Practitioners holding a Certificate of Authorization are allowed to advertise in order to offer their
engineering services as long as the advertising is done in a professional and dignified manner.
The advertising must describe the practitioners services and experience in a factual manner
without exaggeration.
Section 75 of O. Reg. 941/90 governs the use of advertising by a practitioner or firm. The
regulation expressly forbids the use of a members engineering seal or the seal of the
association in any form of advertising engineering services. This includes the use of these seals
on business cards and letterheads. A violation of Section 75 may expose the practitioner to a
complaint of professional misconduct.
Practitioners should avoid advertising that:
claims a greater degree or extent of responsibility for a specified project or projects than is
the fact;
implies, by word or picture, that the practitioner is solely responsible for the engineering of
a product, system or facility that was either designed in collaboration with others or was
not the result of the practitioners work;
illustrates portions of the project for which the advertiser has no responsibility, without
appropriate disclaimer, thus implying greater responsibility than is factual; or
Firms holding a valid Certificate of Authorization are allowed to use both the PEO logo and the
statement Authorized by the Association of Professional Engineers Ontario to offer professional
engineering services on their business documents and advertising. Contact PEO for
information on permissible formats and for reproduction materials.
15.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
24
regulation under the Professional Engineers Act. The current version of this regulation can be
found on the PEO website.
16.
PRACTICE GUIDELINES
25
need information regarding criteria for design they should refer to the best practice standards
established by the research and experience of other practitioners in their area of work. These
discipline-specific standards are prepared by technical associations or learned institutions such
as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc. (IEEE) or the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
26
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Section 27 of the Professional Engineers Act gives the Discipline Committee the authority to
hear and determine allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence against a
practitioner. The following section of O. Reg. 941/90 identifies those actions or omissions by a
practitioner that can be used as the grounds for a discipline case by the association.
27
28
2.
29
30
APPENDIX 2
Legislation
Topics Covered
31
32
33
Reason:
Submitted by:
Date:
34
Practice Guidelines
1. Acoustical Engineering Services in Land-Use Planning (1998)
2. Acting as Contract Employees (2001)
3. Acting as Independent Contractors (2001)
4. Acting under the Drainage Act (1988)
5. Building Projects Using Manufacturer-Designed Systems & Components (1999)
6. Commissioning Work in Buildings (1992)
7. Communications Services (1993)
8. Engineering Services to Municipalities (1986)
9. Environmental Site Assessment, Remediation and Management (1996)
10. General Review of Construction as Required by the Ontario Building Code (2008)
11. Geotechnical Engineering Services (1993)
12. Guideline to Professional Practice (2011)
13. Human Rights in Professional Practice (2009)
14. Land Development/Redevelopment Engineering Services (1994)
15. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services in Buildings (1997)
16. Professional Engineer as an Expert Witness (1997)
17. Professional Engineer's Duty to Report (1991)
18. Project Management Services (1991)
19. Reports for Pre-Start Health and Safety Reviews (2001)
20. Reports on Mineral Properties (2002)
21. Roads, Bridges and Associated Facilities (1995)
22. Selection of Engineering Services (1998)
23. Services for Demolition of Buildings and Other Structures (2011)
24. Solid Waste Management (1993)
25. Structural Engineering Services in Buildings (1995)
26. Temporary Works (1993)
27. Transportation and Traffic Engineering (1994)
28. Use of Agreements between Client and Engineer for Professional Engineering
Services (including sample agreement) (2000)
29. Use of Computer Software Tools Affecting Public Safety or Welfare (1993)
30. Use of the Professional Engineers Seal (2008)
31. Using Software-Based Engineering Tools (2011)
Performance Standards
1. General Review of Construction of a Building (2008)
2. General Review of Demolition and Demolition Plans (2008)
35
C-476-2.1
Appendix B
Consultation Comments
Document:
Revision:
Review Period:
Commentator
Paul Acchione, P.Eng.
Professional Practice
3
March 25, 2011 June 7, 2011
Comments
Page 4, section 4, 3rd paragraph
Include a sentence A person is also practicing
professional engineering if they are undertaking an act
or activity that any legislation or regulation requires a
professional engineer to undertake exclusively.
Reason: Demand side legislation imposes more severe
restrictions on who can practice engineering in some
cases even if there is no obvious public safety issue in
specific applications. An example is the TSSA 2000 and
its regulations.
PEO Response
We cannot say that the person is practicing professional
engineering if doing work required by demand side
legislation. The demand side legislation does not change
the definition of the practice of professional
engineering. Certain work that must be done by a
professional engineer according to demand side
legislation (or that includes engineers within a group of
persons who can do the work) is definitely not a
professional engineering activity. For instance, reserve
fund studies are primarily financial assessments.
Revised
Not correct
to Council.
Revised
Revised
General Comments:
An excellent draft and a significant improvement over
the existing version. Our compliments to the PSC
committee.
The appendix 2 is particularly helpful and the reference
to the e-laws web site is also useful. There is both a
federal and provincial e-laws site that may be worth
mentioning for engineers that are involved in works that
have federal jurisdiction even though there is no P. Eng.
Act federally.
practitioners work;
denigrates or belittles another professionals projects,
firms or individuals;
exaggerates claims as to the performance of the
project;
illustrates portions of the project for which the
advertiser has no responsibility, without appropriate
disclaimer, thus implying greater responsibility than is
factual, or
does not directly or indirectly criticize a practitioner or
the employer of a practitioner.
I believe the last bullet should read as follows:
Revised
Revised
Revised
Revised
Revised
Revised
Page 4:
a) Is there an explanation for why we would need to
"inspire a shared vision for the profession"? The
emphasis should be on individual ingenuity and
inventiveness rather than a shared vision constrained by
10
Page 5:
a) The document claims "The primary mandate of any
professional regulatory body is to protect the public
from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners."
Perhaps you could provide the evidence that the PEO
achieves this goal compared to jurisdictions where
engineering is not regulated nor licensed (such as the
United Kingdom). Of course it would be first necessary
to determine how to measure the "protection of the
public".
Page 6:
a) Why is "Discipline is a key component of professional
regulation"? Shouldn't the laws that cover negligence
Page 7:
a) What is the definition of a "collaborator"?
Page 16:
a) I can't believe you actually printed the following
statement: "Though a practitioners professional
engineering knowledge and experience is beneficial to
condominium boards, non-profit groups, social
organizations and other civic institutions, practitioners
involved as volunteers in such organizations should not
provide engineering services such as design, analysis, or
the offering of professional opinions." Doesn't this hurt
the very people who could least afford engineering
services? Such a statement is truly awful and you
should be ashamed for making this suggestion. Is the
aim to prevent competition (a feature of cartels and
monopolies) or what?
Page 22:
a) Why be negative about "part-time entrepreneurship"
or "moonlighting"? I believe it should be encouraged.
After all, shouldn't inventive and productive individuals
be encouraged to use their talents to the maximum for
the benefit of customers and employers? The point
about conflict of interest or disclosing confidential info.
is good, though.
General Comments:
Overall, OSPE finds the draft guideline as a significant
improvement over the existing version. It is however, a
lengthy document and covers a number of topics that
may be better served with a separate document. OSPE
would suggest that this guideline be limited to areas
involving the rules of practice. Other areas such as
advertising, duty to report, conflict of interest, and code
of conduct could have their own standard or guideline.
Appendix 2 is particularly helpful and the reference to
the e-laws web site on page 17 is also useful. There is
both a federal and provincial e-laws site that may be
worth mentioning for engineers that are involved in
works that have federal jurisdiction even though there
is no Professional Engineers Act federally.
With that said, the engineering business is changing.
There is more competition with foreign firms now doing
work for Ontario facilities. Their engineering
deliverables need to be reviewed and stamped by an
Ontario licenced engineer who typically does not
control the budget or schedule and is not intimately
familiar with the work. Also many corporations are
opening up supervision and management opportunities
to competent technical staff who do not have a
professional engineering licence but who will supervise
professional engineers. Finally, economic pressures
from global competition is creating cost pressures that
are tending to tighten the safety margins that many
engineers prefer to incorporate into their work.
14
15
16
17
18
19
C-476-2.2
4. Appendices
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-2.2
Appendix A
C-476-2.2
Appendix B
xxxx, 2012
Alourdes Sully, P.Eng.
President and Chair
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
4950 Yonge St, Suite 502
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6K1
Dear Ms. Sully,
In response to your letter dated December 20th, 2011 regarding Ontario Society of Professional
Engineers (OSPE) participation on the Government Liaison Committee, I would like to inform you that
the Government Liaison Committee interest is to have OSPE participate as a full member, recognizing
the positive contribution of the current member, Bill Goodings, P.Eng., to date.
Yours sincerely,
C-476-2.3
The Engineering profession is unique in that its set of practices expands with the growth of
technology and science. In 1922, we began with five disciplines (Civil, Mechanical,
Chemical, Electrical and Mining). Today there are over 30 disciplines and many more subvariations. If anything, the rate of growth of new areas of practice is increasing at a
geometric rate. There is also a tendency for some scientists to apply some new discovery to
things that are useful for human consumption. Though this is done innocently of the law,
when such steps are taken and a new public risk is introduced, the work has become
Engineering by definition. Of course, really new science - like that in genomic manipulation introduces unknown risks and really necessitates the discipline and judgment of an Engineer
in applying the precautionary principle.
It is PEOs responsibility to govern the practice of engineering (in order that the public
interest is served and protected). What we have now come to understand over the last 20
years, beginning with the Software Engineering crisis, is that the profession is expanding as
described above. Technology diffusion rates have gone from decades in the 1900s to years
in the 2000s. We currently have more scientists and engineers alive today than ever in the
history of human kind. So our rate of new discoveries and inventions in our current
generation far exceeds our previous human history on this planet!
The creation of this committee is one step in mitigating the run-away growth we are now
recognizing. The committee will be tasked to identify new disciplines as they come into
existence and bring these to the attention of PEO Council for action. Without this
committee, PEO will not have the market and industry visibility it requires to fulfill its full
mandate to govern all areas of engineering practice.
476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
The proposal for this committee flows from work done by several Emerging Discipline Task
Forces (Software, Bio-Engineering, and now, Nano-Molecular Engineering and
Communications Infrastructure Engineering). Engineers Canada has seen this same need
and has tasked CEQB (Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board) to take on a role much
like the one we are proposing herein. It is the intention of this proposal to maintain an
open dialogue with Engineers Canada on these matters so that we develop greater visibility
of the growth in the profession.
2. Proposed Action / Recommendation
On acceptance by PEO Council, the initial actions will be the identification of engineers with
a generalist perspective that can assist in monitoring various industries, universities,
patents and generally developments that cross into the practice of Engineering.
Initially, all members who have participated in an emerging discipline task force should be
consulted for their interest in helping to launch this new committee.
PEOs leading edge work over the last 20 years, with its several task forces on this issue,
places PEO in a leadership position to move forward on this committee. Initial funding will
be the same as all committees in order to hold meetings. When the committee begins to
operate, it is expected that they will come back to Council on an as-needed basis for any
additional funds. For example, the acquiring of patent documents, or the hiring of a support
staff member to provide special research etc.
4. Peer Review & Process Followed
Process
Followed
Council
Identified
Review
Actual
Motion
Review
Page 3 of 6
C-476-2.3
Appendix A
Appendix A Memo from Chantal Guay, P.Eng., CEO, Engineers Canada
From: "Chantal Guay" <Chantal.Guay@engineerscanada.ca>
To: "Peter M DeVita - rogers" <peterdev@rogers.com>; <daveadams@wightman.ca>
Cc: "Kim Allen" <KAllen@peo.on.ca>; <czinck@zcg.com>; "Ken McMartin"
<Ken.McMartin@engineerscanada.ca>; "Stephanie Price"
<Stephanie.Price@engineerscanada.ca>; "Alana Lavoie"
<alana.lavoie@engineerscanada.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:38 AM
Subject: Emerging areas of engineering
Dear David and Peter,
Following e-mails exchanged in mid-January on the potential creation of an emerging areas of
engineering committee at PEO, I would like to provide the following information about what is
in place at Engineers Canada to address emerging areas. We believe that there would be great
value in having good exchange of information and communication between the Qualifications
Board and a potential PEO committee so that duplication of effort is avoided and we can help
each other in the same manner we have done it for nanotechnology and Communications
Infrastructure Engineering.
I would be very happy to discuss further or answer any questions you might have and look
forward to hearing the potential decision of PEO council on the creation of such a committee.
Best regards
Chantal
Engineers Canada has tasked the Qualifications Board with the responsibility to " Identify,
evaluate and advise on the impact of emerging disciplines potentially relevant to the profession
and develop information on admission and experience standards."
Engineers Canada defines the practice of professional engineering as any act of planning,
designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing any
of the foregoing, that requires the application of engineering principles, and that concerns the
safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the
environment. Based on this definition, a new engineering area emerges when a unique core
body of knowledge coalesces, and when this knowledge evolves to the development and design
of devices, processes, systems, and services which affect the welfare and safety of the public.
Therefore, when a new engineering area emerges, the Qualifications Board shall recognize the
field, define it and recommend to the constituent associations that they engage in the
regulation of that area of practice. In fact, Engineers Canada depends upon our constituent
associations and volunteers from across Canada at every step of this process - from identifying
potential areas for inclusion in the report to developing new syllabi. For example, PEO's recent
Page 4 of 6
b) Monitored, as there is insufficient evidence at this time, but the practice may be emerging
into the practice of professional engineering
c) No longer studied, as it is clearly either not the practice of professional engineering, or not
a new field in the practice of professional engineering
Areas which the Task Force recommends to "monitor" are updated annually by the Research
Department, so that they are reviewed by a new Task Force every two years.
If the Task Force recommends to "investigate", the Research Department commissions an
Expert Opinion Paper to provide further information on the emerging field. This paper serves to
provide greater depth of information that is presented in the Emerging Areas Report. The paper
normally is written by an expert (as identified by the Research Department) and covers the
following topics:
*
History
Situation in Canada
o Education
o Research
Page 5 of 6
o Commercial implications
*
Public safety
The Expert Opinion Paper is submitted to the Qualifications Board and forms the basis for their
decision of whether or not such an area should be recognized as the practice of professional
engineering. When the Qualifications Board recognizes a new field, they also direct the
Syllabus Committee to create a new syllabus related to this field, to be included in the National
Examination Syllabus.
The National Examination Syllabus is used by the constituent associations to evaluate the
academic credentials of applicants for licensure who do not have an accredited undergraduate
engineering degree. This includes both foreign applicants and those who obtained degrees in
Canada in science or from unaccredited programs. Each Examination Syllabus is meant to be
broadly representative of accredited programs in Canada. As such, developing a new syllabus is
less about defining the core body of knowledge for a new field (this has been done in the
previous steps), and more about reflecting the actual situation in Canada.
The Syllabus Committee strikes a sub-committee for the development of each new syllabus.
Sub-committee members are volunteers from both academia and industry, from across Canada.
The sub-committee prepares a draft syllabus which is circulated to the constituent associations
through the Constituent Association Request to receive their formal feedback. Based on this
feedback, a final syllabus is prepared and presented to the Qualifications Board for approval.
Once approved, the document becomes part of the National Examination Syllabus.
Page 6 of 6
C-476-2.3
Appendix B
Terms of Reference
Legislated and
other Mandate
approved by
Council
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Constituency &
Qualifications of
Committee/Task
Force Members
A maximum of ten members on the Main Committee itself. The Main Committee
must have at least five (5) members to operate and shall request additional
members if membership falls below this.
Each task /working group established under the Committee will be chaired by a
Vice Chair of the Committee, and will have additional members appointed for the
term of the task / working group from amongst members of the Committee and
others chosen for their expertise and/or interest in the discipline under
consideration.
Committee members should have knowledge of and experience with professional
engineering practice and at least one PEO regulatory committee.
It is desirable that some members be drawn from stakeholders such as: ARC, ERC,
PSC, OSPE, Consulting Engineers Ontario, and Engineers Canada (CEAB, CEQB)
Qualifications
and election of
the Chair
Qualifications
and election of
the Vice Chair(s)
Duties of Vice
Chair(s)
To chair meetings of the main Committee in the chairs absence, and to provide
orientation and training for new members.
To chair meetings of their respective working/task groups.
Quorum
Meeting
Frequency &
Time
Commitment
The Committee will hold at least four regular meetings per year, one in each
calendar quarter, for at least one hour at a time. Additional regular or special
meetings may be scheduled at any time with the agreement of the members.
Ideally, participation will be in person, but teleconferencing/videoconferencing is
available as an option. Mutually convenient times will be determined by the Chair
consulting with the committee members.
Operational year
time frame
January December
Committee
advisor
It is expected that the task groups will consult with PEO's regulatory committees involved in
admissions, complaints, enforcement, and professional standards (e.g., ARC, ERC. ENF, LEC,
PSC) as well as external stakeholders to identify the regulatory issues associated with the
identified emerging scopes of practice, and will advise them and Council on the steps necessary
for PEO to regulate them effectively in the public interest.
C-476-2.3
Appendix C
Engineers Canada
Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..
I.
Introduction...
II.
Financial Engineering.
III.
IV.
Management Engineering.
V.
10
VI.
Clinical Engineering
11
VII.
Architectural Engineering.
12
14
IX.
Pharmaceutical Engineering
15
X.
16
Page 2 of 17
Executive Summary
The Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice report identifies potential new areas of practice for review and
assessment by the Engineers Canada Qualifications Board. The 2011 review examines a total of nine potential
emerging areas, namely financial engineering, energy engineering and sustainability engineering, management
engineering, information systems security engineering, clinical engineering, architectural engineering, climate
engineering/geo-engineering, and pharmaceutical engineering.
Financial engineering is defined as a multidisciplinary field relating to the creation of new financial instruments
and strategies, and involving financial theory, the methods of engineering, the tools of mathematics, and the
practice of programming. Financial engineering aims to precisely control the financial risk that an entity takes
on. Most of the financial engineering courses or programs offered at Canadian universities are located outside
of engineering within the universities management or business faculties, and are often associated with
masters level education, such as a Master of Financial Engineering. Despite its name, existing programs in
financial engineering do not appear to be considered a field of engineering, and only a limited number of
engineering-based courses in financial engineering currently exist in Canada.
The fields of energy engineering and sustainability engineering have become very closely connected. Energy
engineering deals with all aspects of energy, from its generation to its end use. Sustainability engineering is
concerned with the responsible use of the worlds finite natural resources in a manner which will not
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Canadian universities are expanding
their educational offerings in the area of energy engineering, and sustainability engineering is being widely
incorporated into existing engineering disciplines or combined with other fields to form multi-disciplinary
programs. As use of these titles continues to grow, they will likely make further gains in popularity and
acceptance as recognized fields of engineering practice.
Management engineering refers to ways of taking the disciplines, practices, and processes of engineering and
transferring them to business management in order to optimize complex processes or systems. Management
engineering as its own field is still relatively new, but appears to apply many of the same tools and techniques
that are used in the traditional discipline of industrial engineering, with greater depth of training in modern
information systems, operations research, and general management.
Information systems security engineering involves designing systems to secure and protect information. It is
defined as applied systems engineering with an emphasis on information security. Information systems
security engineering currently exists as an independent field of study at only one Canadian university, but most
computer-related science and engineering programs include courses or even specializations in information
systems security. Since information systems security concerns impact most areas of society, it is likely that this
field will continue to grow as it aims to increase public safety through the effective protection of stored
information.
Clinical engineering is typically considered a branch within biomedical engineering that is primarily responsible
for applying and implementing medical technology to optimize health care delivery. Clinical engineering is a
bridge that links medicine and engineering, a role that is becoming increasingly more important as clinical
medicine becomes more and more dependent on technology and sophisticated equipment. Clinical
engineering appears to be gaining recognition as the field responsible for assessing, managing, and solving
problems within an industry that sees significant intersection and interaction between healthcare and
engineering.
Architectural engineering is the application of engineering principles and technology to building design and
construction. While the term architectural engineering is common in the United States, it is often referred to
Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
Page 3 of 17
as building engineering in Canada. Architectural/building engineering shares common elements with several
other engineering disciplines, but architectural engineering concentrates on building projects, which includes
building system design and their impact on the surrounding environment, as well as addressing unique
challenges such as earthquake and hurricane preparedness.
Climate engineering or geo-engineering can be defined as the deliberate, large-scale modification or
engineering of the environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in human-induced
climate change or atmospheric chemistry. The field of climate engineering/geo-engineering has, as of yet, not
demonstrated a significant presence in engineering education, and definitions of these terms are not
universally accepted. It remains a relatively new field with largely unproven strategies that are receiving some
attention in research circles due to growing concerns over climate change issues.
Pharmaceutical engineering is typically associated with the conception, design, scale-up, manufacturing,
labelling, and packaging processes involved in the conversion of chemical and biological materials to
pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical therapies, but it can also take part in the conception, design,
construction, and operation of the research facilities and manufacturing plants where these end-products are
developed and produced. While still relatively new, the field of pharmaceutical engineering aims to provide
engineers with the requisite skills to work in the rapidly evolving regulatory framework that determines
pharmaceutical product design and manufacturing processes. Academic programs dedicated to this field of
study are few at the moment, but the existence of such organizations as the International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering, provides some evidence that this discipline may continue to grow.
These nine fields of study are examined in further detail in the 2011 Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
report, along with a brief summary of the survey process used to identify and select areas for inclusion in this
years review.
Page 4 of 17
I. Introduction
In 1999, Engineers Canada adopted the Emerging Technologies Policy. 1 This policy was developed to ensure
that emerging areas of engineering practice are identified and addressed proactively by the profession. To
assist in the implementation of this policy, the Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice report is now produced
biennially to identify potential new areas of practice for review and assessment by the Engineers Canada
Qualifications Board.
In the 2009 report, 13 potential emerging areas were examined: avionics engineering, biomedical engineering,
biomolecular engineering, ecological engineering, electronic game engineering/simulation-based engineering
science, enviromatics, information systems security engineering, integrated computational materials
engineering, management engineering, nanotechnology engineering, energy engineering, sustainability
engineering, and health engineering. A few of these areas are re-examined as part of this years report, along
with some potential new areas of practice that have not been the focus of previous reports. To identify these
potential new areas, a review was undertaken with an emphasis on the educational activities occurring at
Canadian universities. An email survey of the members of the National Council of Deans of Engineering and
Applied Science was also conducted to supplement this review. This years review examines a total of nine
potential emerging areas, namely financial engineering, energy engineering and sustainability engineering,
management engineering, information systems security engineering, clinical engineering, architectural
engineering, climate engineering/geo-engineering, and pharmaceutical engineering.
Page 5 of 17
Situation
At York University, the financial engineering program is a collaborative program established in cooperation
with the Faculty of Arts Department of Mathematics, the Faculty of Science and Engineering Department of
Mathematics & Statistics, and the Schulich School of Business. A graduate diploma in financial engineering is
offered to Masters students in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Master of Business Administration students
in the Schulich School of Business. For other Masters students at York University, the financial engineering
program must be completed as a diploma. Students who fulfill the degree requirements of their graduate
program as well as the requirements for the financial engineering diploma are eligible for a graduate diploma
in financial engineering. The program aims to produce Financial Engineering graduates that have the
theoretical knowledge and specialized skills required to develop new financial instruments and to understand
the role of financial instruments within the broader economic and business contexts. 4
At the University of Toronto, financial engineering is the focus of the Master of Mathematical Finance program,
which involves a multi-disciplinary approach that employs academics in mathematics, computer science,
statistics, and engineering to teach courses in computing, financial concepts, probability, mathematical finance,
risk management, and communication skills. 5 Also available through the University of Toronto, the Rotman
School of Management offers a Master of Business Administration with a major in Risk Management and
Financial Engineering.
A few examples can be found of Canadian universities offering courses in financial engineering within their
engineering faculties. For instance, in its 2011-2012 undergraduate calendar, Ryerson University lists a course
in financial engineering as part of the industrial engineering program. The course is described as exploring
concepts and methods of financial engineering and its applications with special emphasis on fixed income
mathematics, introduction to derivatives, valuation of forward contracts and future contracts, hedging
strategies using futures, properties of stock options, no-arbitrage pricing, continuous models (the Black-Scholes
theory), and discrete models (lattice approach, Monte Carlo simulation, and finite difference method). 6
Likewise, the University of Toronto offers a course in financial engineering through an Engineering
Mathematics, Statistics, and Finance major in their Engineering Science program. This major is intended to
provide students with a strong background in mathematics and statistics, and an understanding of how these
disciplines apply to practise in quantitative finance through the use of engineering tools, such as optimization. 7
The course in financial engineering is said to provide a background in the fundamental areas in financial
engineering including relevant concepts from financial economics. Major topics include interest rate theory,
fixed income securities, bond portfolio construction, term structure of interest rates, mean-variance
optimization theory, the capital asset pricing model, arbitrage pricing theory, forwards and futures, and
introduction to option pricing and structured finance. 8
Conclusion
Despite its name, existing programs in financial engineering do not appear to be considered a field of
engineering, and only a limited number of engineering-based courses in financial engineering currently exist in
Canada. At the 2010 Investment Innovation Conference held in Phoenix, Arizona, keynote speaker Edward
Kane, professor of finance at Boston College, stated that there is no true engineering involved in the financial
www.yorku.ca/fineng/home/home.html
http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca
6
http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2011-2012/pg2769.html
4
5
http://www.discover.engineering.utoronto.ca/programs/academic-programs/engineering-science.htm
http://engsci.utoronto.ca/explore_our_program/majors/math_stats_and_finance/finance_courses.htm
Page 6 of 17
world. 9 In the United States, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) does not
accredit financial engineering degrees.
http://www.benefitscanada.com/investments/global-investments/financial-engineering-can-cause-more-harm-thanuntested-medicines-344
10
International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2008. Introduction to sustainable development: Definitions.
http://sdgateway,net/introsd/definitions.htm
11
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1988). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
http://interestingenergyfacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/sustainable-energy-and-sustainable.html
13
Carnegie Mellon Center for Sustainable Engineering. http://www.csengin.org/
14
http://www1.carleton.ca/admissions/programs/sustainable-and-renewable-energy/
9
Page 7 of 17
Carleton University is also offering a new undergraduate program in Architectural Conservation and
Sustainability Engineering, with first graduates expected in 2015. 15 This program is discussed in detail under
the Architectural Engineering section of this report.
Likewise, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology is offering a new program in Energy Systems
Engineering, with first graduates also expected in 2015. The programs objectives are to teach students the
skills they will need to design and develop tomorrows energy systems. The program was developed to meet
the rapidly increasing demand for graduates with the knowledge and skills required to help Canada and the
rest of the world meet the terms of the Kyoto agreement, while ensuring that the growing consumption of
energy can be satisfied economically and with minimum impact on the environment. The curriculum provides
students with an understanding of the principles and applications of the full range of energy systems and
technologies from traditional fossil-fuelled energy systems to alternative energy technologies, and also
provides education on the production, storage, distribution and utilization of energy. 16
As of September 2010, Queens University offers a collaborative Masters Program in Applied Sustainability,
involving six programs within the engineering faculty: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Mechanical and Materials Engineering
and Mining Engineering. The objective of this collaborative program is to expose students to the
implementation of sustainable engineering solutions within the context of broader sustainability theory. 17
The University of Toronto offers all undergraduate engineering students (except students enrolled in the
Engineering Science Energy Systems Option) the opportunity to pursue the sustainable energy minor. The
minor is intended for students interested in learning more about energy, its sustainable use, energy demand
management and the public policy context in which energy use and production is regulated. 18
The Center for Sustainable Engineering located in Syracuse, New York, is a partnership among five universities:
Syracuse University (lead institution), Arizona State University, Carnegie-Mellon University, Georgia Institute of
Technology and the University of Texas at Austin. Supported by the National Science Foundation and the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Centre is dedicated to helping engineering professors update their
courses and develop new ones to account for rapidly changing world conditions that are transforming the
practice of engineering. This is achieved through workshops conducted by the Center, which provide guidance
so that the impacts of engineering decisions on the environment, society, and the economy can be included in
courses across the engineering curriculum. 19
Conclusion
Interest in energy engineering has increased in recent years because of a growing need for sustainable energy
systems. Several Canadian universities are expanding their educational offerings in the area of energy
engineering, either as a stand-alone program, or as an integral component of existing programs. Sustainability
engineering appears to be less of a stand-alone discipline and more of a philosophical approach that is being
widely incorporated into existing engineering disciplines or combined with other fields to form multidisciplinary programs. However, as use of these titles continues to grow, they will likely make further gains in
popularity and acceptance as recognized fields of engineering practice.
www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccmsfiles/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf
16
https://connect.uoit.ca/uoit/program.do?from=subject&programID=48
17
www.queensu.ca/sgs/program/engineering-sciences/applied-sustainability.html
18
http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/Programs/Minors_Certificates/Engineering_Minors_Certificates.htm
19
http://www.csengin.org/csengine
15
Page 8 of 17
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx
http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/admissions/Admissions/documents/Engineering_pdf_2010FINAL.pdf
22
http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/students/academic-programs/interdisciplinary-programs
23
http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/current_students/graduate/EMS/index.php
20
21
Page 9 of 17
Memorial University and the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth both offer a Master of Engineering
Management program. The aim of these programs is to develop managers who understand both the
engineering and business aspects of technology. 24,25
According to the Canadian Society for Engineering Management, engineering management principles are
broadly-based and draw from many different disciplines such as the natural sciences, mathematics, economics,
the humanities and social sciences. One of the goals of the Society is to promote engineering management as
a unique discipline. 26
Conclusion
Management engineering as its own field is still relatively new, but it may be gradually emerging as a specific
branch of engineering that takes a comprehensive approach to management. Management engineering
appears to apply many of the same tools and techniques that are used in the traditional discipline of industrial
engineering, but provides its students with greater depth of training in modern information systems,
operations research, and general management. 27
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/graduate/mem/
http://www.engr.mun.ca/graduate/course/mem.php
26
http://www.csem-scgi.org/about.html
27
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx
28
http://www.sse-cmm.org/docs/ssecmmv3final.pdf
29
M. Douglas Higginbotham et al., Integrating information security engineering with system engineering with system
engineering tools (Seventh IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative
Enterprises, 1998), Abstract.
30
http://www.ciise.concordia.ca/
25
Page 10 of 17
Information systems security is also recognized as an important field by many institutions across Canada, but is
usually taught as part of computer science programs or within various engineering disciplines, like electrical,
computer, and systems engineering.
Headquartered in the United States, the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium
offers a certification program entitled Information Systems Security Engineering Professional. Developed in
conjunction with the United States National Security Agency, this concentration is intended to provide
recognition for advanced expertise in information systems security engineering. 31
The first international workshop on information systems security engineering was held in London, United
Kingdom, in June of 2011, in conjunction with the 23rd international conference on advanced information
systems engineering. The purpose of the workshop was to identify current research on methods, models, and
tools for information systems security and to bring together researchers and practitioners to discuss key issues
in the field. 32
Conclusion
While information systems security engineering currently exists as an independent field of study at only one
Canadian university, most computer-related science and engineering programs include courses or even
specializations in information systems security. There is also consensus within the industry that the
information systems security process needs to be considered as an integral part of all systems engineering
work. Since information systems security concerns impact most areas of society, this field may continue to
grow as it aims to increase public safety by improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and resilience of systems
that store information.
https://www.isc2.org/issep.aspx
http://gsya.esi.uclm.es/Wisse2011/CFP_WISSE2011.pdf
33
http://accenet.org/default.asp?page=about§ion=definition
32
Page 11 of 17
At the undergraduate level, Carleton University does offer its fourth-year engineering students a course in
clinical engineering through the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering. The course is intended to
introduce students to the profession of clinical engineering and is suggested for those interested in biomedical
engineering, clinical engineering, or medical informatics. 34
At the graduate level, the University of Torontos Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering offers a
Clinical Engineering Master of Health Science. The program is said to prepare engineers to innovate new
solutions to clinical challenges, to enhance patient safety, and to optimize delivery, integration and
management of contemporary technology-mediated healthcare. The Institute also offers a clinical engineering
concentration within its PhD program. 35
At the professional level, clinical engineering societies currently exist in Alberta, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada,
and a clinical engineering certification program is administered through the Healthcare Technology
Certification Commission and the Canadian Board of Examiners for Clinical Engineering Certification. 36
Conclusion
It is clear that traditional medical equipment will continue to grow in complexity and that healthcare
technology will continue to extend into the realm of information and communications systems. Clinical
engineering is a bridge that links medicine and engineering, a role that is becoming increasingly more
important as clinical medicine becomes more and more dependent on technology and sophisticated
equipment. Clinical engineering appears to be gaining recognition as the field responsible for assessing,
managing, and solving problems within an industry that sees significant intersection and interaction between
healthcare and engineering.
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/courses/courseOutlines/Winter/SYSC4202_W11.pdf
http://ibbme.utoronto.ca/pro/clinicaleng/overview.htm
36
http://www.cmbes.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=212
37
http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf
34
35
Page 12 of 17
students are required to concentrate on one of these systems, while in others, they can receive a generalist
architectural or building engineering degree.38
Situation
Many American universities offer accredited undergraduate degree programs in architectural engineering,
however, in Canada the title is not widely used.
The Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering at Concordia University offers undergraduate
and graduate programs in building engineering. The programs aim to provide their graduates with an
education that focuses on the planning, design, construction, operation, renovation, and maintenance of
buildings, as well as with their impacts on the surrounding environment. The interdisciplinary nature of the
programs integrates pertinent knowledge from various disciplines, including civil engineering for building
structures and foundation; mechanical engineering for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system, and for
mechanical service systems; electrical engineering for power distribution, control, and electrical systems;
physics for building science, lighting and acoustics; chemistry and biology for indoor air quality; architecture for
form, function, building codes and specifications; and economics for project planning and scheduling.
Concordias programs are designed to meet the needs of the construction industry by providing engineers
familiar with the overall design of built facilities. To reflect the increasing dependence of computer technology
in engineering, the Department also offers an information technology option within the building engineering
program. 39 A similar program entitled Gnie de la construction is also offered through lcole de technologie
suprieure in Quebec. 40
As mentioned earlier in this report, Carleton University is offering a new undergraduate program in
Architectural Conservation and Sustainability Engineering, with first graduates expected in 2015. Blending
engineering and architecture, the program offers a choice of two streams of study: the structural stream and
the environmental stream. In the first two years, students in both streams study a similar core of courses in
engineering, math, science and introductory architecture. In the third and fourth years of the program, the
streams become more specialized. The structural stream concentrates on conservation and sustainability in the
design of new structures, and the assessment and retrofit of existing structures. The environmental stream
teaches sustainable building practices with a focus on water quality and conservation, air quality, life cycle
analysis, and disposal of materials and waste streams. Students in both streams also study green building
design and rehabilitation of heritage buildings. 41
An undergraduate program in Ocean and Naval Architectural Engineering is offered through Memorial
University and includes two related but distinct areas. Naval architectural engineers conceive, design and
construct ships, offshore structures and other floating equipment to serve the needs of the ocean-going
community. A naval engineer has a working knowledge of several disciplines and expertise in one of the basic
areas of structural, hydro-dynamical or marine systems design. On the other hand, an ocean engineer develops
and designs floating, underwater and bottom-sited systems, wave-measuring buoys, underwater vehicles,
sonar and other acoustic systems, offshore platforms and shoreline facilities, such as harbours and artificial
islands. The design of large structures such as ships and drill rigs requires an understanding of the many facets
of design: function, strength, appearance and, especially important at sea, safety. 42
38
http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf
http://www.bcee.concordia.ca/index.php/Building_Engineering
40
http://www.etsmtl.ca/Programmes-Etudes/1er-cycle/Bac/7921
41
www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccmsfiles/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf
42
http://www.engr.mun.ca/programs/undergraduate/ocean_naval/
39
Page 13 of 17
In addition to these, there are at least 16 American universities that offer accredited degree programs in
architectural engineering, including: the University of Colorado at Boulder, Drexel University, Kansas State
University, the University of Miami, Oklahoma State University, Pennsylvania State University, Tennessee State
University, and the University of Texas at Austin. 43
Conclusion
The term architectural engineering is common in the United States with at least 16 accredited programs
currently available through American universities. While this field is recognized as a distinct engineering
discipline, it is often referred to as building engineering in Canada. Architectural/building engineering shares
common elements with several other engineering disciplines, but architectural engineering concentrates on
building projects, which includes building system design and their impact on the surrounding environment, as
well as addressing unique challenges such as earthquake and hurricane preparedness.
http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf
45
http://royalsociety.org/Stop-emitting-CO2-or-geoengineering-could-be-our-only-hope/
46
http://library.trocaire.edu/pdf/news/Climate.pdf
47
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3443/
48
"Geoengineering the climate". The Royal Society. 2009.
http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768.
43
44
Page 14 of 17
The Stanford Center for Professional Development, associated with the School of Engineering at Stanford
University, has offered a graduate-level course in engineering and climate change. The course is said to equip
students with tools to apply the engineering mindset to problems that stem from climate change, so that they
may consider and evaluate possible interventional, remedial and adaptive approaches. 49
Conclusion
The field of climate engineering/geo-engineering has, as of yet, not demonstrated a significant presence in
engineering education, and definitions of these terms are not universally accepted. It remains a relatively new
field with largely unproven strategies that are receiving some attention in research circles due to growing
concerns over climate change issues.
http://scpd.stanford.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=8984957
John L. McGuire, Horst Hasskarl, Gerd Bode, Ingrid Klingmann, Manuel Zahn "Pharmaceuticals, General Survey"
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2007.
51
http://chemeng.adelaide.edu.au/programs/pharmaceutical/about/
52
http://www.lsu.edu/studentorgs/ispe/Welcome_files/PHARMACEUTICAL%20ENGINEERING.pdf
53
http://chemeng.adelaide.edu.au/programs/pharmaceutical/about/
49
50
Page 15 of 17
In Canada, the cole Polytechnique de Montral has identified pharmaceutical engineering as a promising area
of growth. The feedback received from our emerging areas survey revealed that the institution is considering
future development of courses in this area through their department of chemical engineering to promote what
they consider to be a cutting-edge field.
In the United States, the New Jersey Institute of Technology offers a Master of Science in Pharmaceutical
Engineering through their Department of Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering. The program is
said to emphasize the engineering aspects of drug manufacturing, pharmaceutical production, pharmaceutical
development, and pharmaceutical operations.54
Similarly, the University of Michigan offers a Master of Engineering program in pharmaceutical engineering as a
joint venture between its Colleges of Pharmacy and Engineering 55, and Rutgers University offers graduate-level
programs in pharmaceutical engineering at both the masters and doctorate levels, administered by their
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering. 56
Conclusion
While still relatively new, the field of pharmaceutical engineering aims to provide engineers with the requisite
skills to work in the rapidly evolving regulatory framework that determines pharmaceutical product design and
manufacturing processes. The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rigorous technological requirements
and highly regulated work environments, and the goal of pharmaceutical engineering programs is to prepare
students for this environment with the ability to adapt to the fast-paced changes associated with this industry.
Academic programs dedicated to this field of study are few at the moment, but the existence of such
organizations as the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering 57, founded in 1980, provides some
evidence that this discipline may continue to grow in the coming years.
antibody engineering
educational engineering
vaccine engineering
labour market engineering
production engineering
54
http://catalog.njit.edu/graduate/programs/pharmaceuticaleng.php
http://pharmacy.umich.edu/pharmacy/master_of_engineering_-_pharmaceutical_engineering
56
http://pharmeng.rutgers.edu/
57
http://www.ispe.org/cs/about_ispe_section/overview
55
Page 16 of 17
infostructure engineering
data engineering
earth systems engineering
mathematical and modeling engineering
packaging engineering
claytronics
haptics
While references to these terms and concepts do exist, insufficient evidence was found to expand on any of
these in terms of emerging areas of engineering practice. However, as these fields evolve, they may be
appropriate for inclusion in future iterations of Engineers Canadas Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
Report.
Page 17 of 17
C-476-2.4
PEOs National Framework Task Force (NFTF) has completed its review of the three
Canadian Framework for Licensure (CFL) elements. The CFL has completed the research,
development, consultation, analysis, and has obtained the concurrence of many constituent
associations for three elements of the framework. The NFTF has had each element peer
reviewed by the appropriate PEO Committee. The elements are presented individually for
Council concurrence.
The CFL accepted the NFTFs recommendation to use change from constituent association
approval to concurrence as approval for the element by a constituent association
actually would occur once it amends the appropriate governing documents. At this stage
constituent associations are providing an agreement in opinion as to what is presented in
the document. The CFL process facilities revisiting elements as may be required.
The elements are presented individually for endorsement by the Engineers Canada Board.
The overview of the process is set out in Appendix A and a status report is present in
Appendix B.
2. Recommendation and Rationale
The NFTF recommends that Council concur with elements as presented. Comments from
the peer reviewers for all three elements have been materially incorporated in the attached
documents.
476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Endorsement of these elements by the Engineers Canada Board requires two-thirds of the
constituent associations representing 60% of the registrants in Canada. This will allow the
elements to be included in the Framework, and to proceed to the next step:
Implementation. During implementation, Engineers Canada will develop a guideline or
other document to elaborate on the use of the element by the constituent associations.
4. Peer Review & Process Followed
At the consultation stage, PEO surveyed licence holders. The NFTF provided comments
accordance with the CFL process.
The Policy Direction and Key Considerations documents for concurrence were provided to:
CFL Element - Policy Direction and Key
Considerations
Accountability of Engineering
Organizations
Continuing Professional Development
Negotiating International Recognition
Agreements
5. Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C(i)
Appendix C(ii)
Appendix D(i)
Appendix D(i)
Appendix E(i)
Appendix E(i)
2 | Page
C-476-2.4
Appendix A
1|P age
Start *
Research
A framework
element
Details
Summarize the current
practices/legislation of the
engineering regulators and others
Identify promising practices
Development
Summary with
supporting
research
Output
Facilitated By
Summary with
supporting
research
Engineers Canada
Consultation
document
CEO Group
Draft purpose
statement and
key
considerations
Constituent
Associations and
Engineers Canada
Confirmed key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
CEO Group
Constituent
Associations
Engineers Canada
Board of Directors
Consultation
Consultation
document
Draft purpose
statement and
key
considerations
Approval
Confirmed key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
Approved key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
Endorsement
Approved
principles and
supporting
details
Element of the
Canadian
Framework for
Licensure
Implementation
Element of the
Canadian
Framework for
Licensure
Analysis
Enhanced
regulatory
abilities
Engineers Canada
Constituent
Associations
Consensus will be based on Engineers Canadas voting procedures for the meeting of members (2/3 of the Members
representing at least 60% of the Registrants)
C-476-2.4
Appendix B
Endorse
Target
Target
July 13 2011
Oct 2011
Feb 2012
June 18 11
July 13 2011
Nov 2011
Feb 2012
Feb 23 2011
June 18 11
July 13 2011
Dec 2011
Feb 2012
May 2011
July 13 2011
Nov 30 2011
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Sept 2011
Oct 3 2011
Feb 1 2012
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Sept 2011
Oct 3 2011
Feb 1 2012
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Jan 2012
Feb 22 2012
Jan 2012
May 2012
Feb 2012
May 2012
Feb 2012
May 2012
Discipline - "jurisdiction"
Mar 2012
May 2012
Apr 2012
July 2012
May 2012
July 2012
June 2012
Oct 2012
Discipline process
July 2012
Oct 2012
Enforcement
Aug 2012
Oct 2012
Sept 2012
Feb 2013
Oct 2012
Feb 2013
Nov 2012
Feb 2013
Dec 2012
Feb 2013
Jan 2013
May 2013
Continuing Professional
Development
Accountability of Engineering
Organizations
Negotiating International
Agreements
Fairness & Service Level Norms
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies Lim. Licence
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies - the P.Eng.
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies - EITs
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies - Provisional
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies - Temporary
Discipline - "portability"
Research
Development
Consultation
(planned)
(CEO review)
Due Date
Jan 2011
Feb 23 2011
June 18 11
Feb 2011
Feb 23 2011
Feb 2011
CEO Analysis
Implement
Page 1 of 3
Research
Development
Consultation
(planned)
(CEO review)
Due Date
Jan 2013
May 2013
Jan 2013
May 2013
Feb 2013
May 2013
Mar 2013
May 2013
CEO Analysis
CA Concur.
Endorse
Target
Target
Implement
Constituent Associations
CFL Element
% Reg
NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
YK
NW
12
100.0%
12
100.0%
12
100.0%
59.5%
4.3%
4.3%
Page 2 of 3
The following table shows the number of constituent associations who have endorsed, approved, or
concurred with the Key Considerations of each element.
Constituent Associations
CFL Element
% Reg
9
8
9
65.1%
64.7%
65.1%
NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YK
NW
1
1
It should be noted that the first three elements (Continuing professional development, Accountability of
engineering organizations, and Negotiating International Agreements) were revised during the approval
process. The following organizations had approved the first version of the documents:
Constituent Associations
CFL Element
NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
YK
NW
1
1
Page 3 of 3
C-476-2.4
Appendix C(i)
Purpose To ensure that organizations engaged in the practice of professional engineering are held to
the same standards as the licence holders who work for them.
Policy Directions
Canadian engineering regulators require legislation that holds organizations engaged in the practice of
professional engineering accountable. The purpose and procedures of the system of accountability
should be clearly and consistently explained to the organizations and the public.
Key Considerations
1. All organizations engaged in the practice of professional engineering should be held accountable
to uphold and protect the requirements set out in engineering legislation.
2. The officers and directors of these organizations must ensure compliance with engineering
legislative requirements.
3. Holding engineering organizations accountable in no way diminishes or mitigates the
responsibilities of individual licence holders.
4. In order to be allowed to use the engineering designations in their name, organizations must
respect the legislative requirements of the province or territory in which they offer their
services.
5. Permissive legislation to allow for consistent systems for multi-jurisdictional organizations.
Implementing consistent systems for organizations will enable Canadian engineering regulators to
better protect the public.
Maintaining similar requirements across Canada will improve acceptance of such programs with
organizations, thereby easing implementation, and simplifying the administrative burden for
organizations in an age of increasing nationalization and mobility of the practice of professional
engineering throughout Canada.
NOTE: Research and results from the consultation for this element can be found on the CFL SharePoint site. Details
for implementation will be developed at Step 7.
C-476-2.4
Appendix C(ii)
APEGBC
APEGGA
Name
Details
n/a
Permit to
Practice
APEGS
APEGM
PEO
Certificate of
Authorization
Certificate of
Authorization
Certificate of
Authorization
OIQ
APEGNB
n/a
Certificate of
Authorization
Page 1 of 7
Certificate of
Compliance
Engineers
PEI
Certificate of
Authorization
PEGNL
Permit to
Practice
APEY
Permit to
Practice
NAPEG
Permit to
Practice
Page 2 of 7
More than 35 states in the United States have some form of corporate registration for engineering
firms. The most common name for this is Certificate of Authorization.
Although many international engineering organizations have partnerships with engineering
corporations (for programs like continuing professional development, and engineer-in-training
development & licensure), corporate registration is not required in:
o Australia (Engineers Australia )
o Chinese Taipei (Chinese Institute of Engineers)
o Hong Kong China (Hong Kong Institution of Engineers)
o India (Institution of Engineers India)
o Ireland (Engineers Ireland)
o Japan (Institution of Professional Engineers Japan)
o Korea (Korean Professional Engineers Association)
o Malaysia (Institution of Engineers Malaysia)
o New Zealand (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand)
o Singapore (Institution of Engineers Singapore)
o South Africa (Engineering Council of South Africa)
o Sri Lanka(Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka)
o United Kingdom (Engineering Council United Kingdom)
None of the Law Societies require corporate registration, however, the law society may examine the
operation of legal partnerships for such things as trust accounting.
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons require their members to obtain a license if they practice within
a corporation. There are requirements regarding directors and retention of voting control by M.D.s.
Fees vary based on the province, and are low in comparison to the licensing fees for individuals.
o In BC and Ontario, facilities offering medical services must be accredited or licensed and
in Ontario these facilities must also take part in a Quality Assurance program.
Associations of Veterinarians require veterinary facilities to be registered or accredited and the
associations also inspect the facilities. Fees vary based on the province.
Chartered accountants who offer services to the public must register, and must abide by specific
rules of conduct for firms. Fees vary based on the province (and, in BC, on the number of CA
partners in the firm). Most Institutes of Chartered Accountants also inspect the firms.
Architects must obtain a certificate of practice, but only a few associations do practice reviews of
firms. Fees vary based on the number employees and the type of firm.
The existence (or non-existence) of corporate registration requirements in the various provinces and
territories causes confusion for those businesses that operate in more than one province or
territory.
All Engineering Acts state that the mandate of the association is to protect the public. The public are
affected by engineering decisions made by individual engineers and by the business entities that
they work for.
Page 3 of 7
The majority of professional engineers are employee engineers, working within business entities.
These employee engineers do not necessarily work for a professional engineer, and professional
engineers do not necessarily make the decisions or control the voting shares for their businesses.
The decisions of business entities may not be directly covered by the Code of Ethics or any other
practice standards or guidelines.
The compliance of individual practitioners with engineering legislation is directed by the
organizational culture in which the individual engineer practises.
In Canada, incorporated business entities must register in every province in which they operate.
Some of the regulators use a narrow definition of the term 'public' regarding the application of their
Act, such that, engineers working for the employers and if the work is for the employer (even the
ultimate user is not the employer), the engineer is not considered to be providing services to the
public and in this case the drawings do not need to be sealed nor should the company require
corporate registration. Consistent application to protect the public should be developed.
It is recommended that the following Guiding Principles form the basis for all Corporate
Licensure policies:
1. All organizations that manage the delivery of engineering services are held accountable to uphold
and protect the requirements set out in engineering legislation.
2. Officers and directors of those organizations must ensure that these requirements are met.
3. Organizations should be accountable for the engineering services provided and for the licence
holders offering those services.
4. Corporate registration systems should address registration across Canada.
5. All organizations providing engineering services should be registered.
6. Requirements regarding the use of the term engineering in corporate names are necessary.
Better protection of the public through the registration of organizations engaging in engineering
activities.
Provide clarity for organizations engaging in engineering activities across Canada.
Page 4 of 7
Page 5 of 7
Architects
BC: certificate of practice, application $138 sole proprietor, $193 corporation, $76 branch office;
annual dues $319/yr up to 2 people (total staff), $352/yr 3-5, $512/yr 6-10, +$171 for each
additional increment of 1-5 additional people
AB: register firms and do practice reviews
SK: $200/application + $200/yr,
MB: $157 or $210 application (certificate of authority)
Page 6 of 7
ON: $282 application, $465/yr for first reg member + $350/additional architect or technologist
(certificate of practice),
NB: $600/member, for certificate of practice
NS: registers firms
PEI: Certificate of Practice, $300/application + $350/yr
NL: no corporate registration
NWT: permit to practice, application fee $250 for 1-2 members, $500 for 3-5, $750 for 6+. Fees are
$700 to $6000 depending on where located (NWT $200, other $5,000) and value of business in NWT
($1,000>250k business, $00<250k business)
Page 7 of 7
C-476-2.4
Appendix D(i)
Purpose To have an effective and relevant continuing professional development program that
achieves the ongoing trust and confidence of the public and government that licence holders are
meeting ethical obligations to maintain their professional competencies.
For the purpose of this document, competencies are defined as integrated clusters of knowledge, skills
and attitudes necessary to perform a task, act or activity at a prescribed proficiency level to meet a
defined requirement.
Policy Direction
Canadian engineering regulators require that licence holders meet the requirements of a continuing
professional development program.
Key Considerations
1. Requirement to participate in a measurable continuing professional development program,
where all licence holders have the responsibility for the maintenance of their competencies in
all areas in which they practise.
2. The continuing professional development program takes into account the fact that
competencies may be acquired through many means.
3. Continuing professional development programs include reporting requirements, the form and
extent of which may vary.
4. Provisions to conduct program and compliance reviews.
5. Avoiding duplicate reporting for licence holders registered with multiple engineering regulatory
bodies.
6. Consequences for non-compliance.
Implementing profession development program requirements will enable the engineering regulators to
maintain their leadership position among other regulated professions in Canada.
Maintaining similar requirements across Canada will improve acceptance of such programs with licence
holders thereby easing implementation, and lowering the administrative burden for licence holders and
the associations in an age of increasing mobility of professionals.
NOTE: Research and results from the consultation for this element can be found on the CFL SharePoint site. Details
for implementation will be developed at Step 7.
C-476-2.4
Appendix D(ii)
Requirements
Annual reporting
of hours
Participation in
program
Hours
80/year
240/three yrs
80/year
240/three yrs
80/yr
recommended
240/three yrs
required
Audits?
Yes
Penalties
Can be struck
from register
No
None
Yes
Can be struck
from register
APEGNB
Annual
commitment
Engineers NS
Annual
declaration
Min. 60/year
240/three yrs
No
Can be struck
from register
Engineers PEI
Annual reporting
of hours
Min 60/year
240/three yrs
Yes
Can be struck
from register
PEGNL
Annual reporting
of hours
Min 60/year
240/three yrs
Yes
Can be struck
from register
Exemptions
Non-practising members, MITs,
(reduced hours for special cases)
Licence waivers may exempt
some members in special cases
Non-practising members, MITs,
(exemptions for special cases)
Non-practising members
(including those on leave or
unemployed)
Non-Practising members (leave,
unemployed, etc.), practising
part-time, exemptions for
special cases
Non-practising members have a
reduced hourly requirement,
(exemptions for special cases)
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
APEGBC
Hope for mandatory in 2012; based on APEGGA model; have voluntary online recording centre
APEGM
Should be mandatory starting in 2012; based on APEGGA model
Have voluntary online recording centre, Council has passed direction to require a mandatory annual
PEO
declaration (regulations being developed)
Guideline exists; proposed program is based on self-evaluation of professional competencies and has
OIQ
been before the Office des professions since 2008
APEY
Based on APEGGA model
NAPEG
Based on APEGGA model
More than 35 American state boards of engineers require continuing professional development
Of the three engineering associations that Engineers Canada has full professional-level Mutual
Recognition Agreements with - Engineers Australia, Engineers Ireland and the Hong Kong Institute
of Engineers two have mandatory continuing professional development programs (Australia and
Hong Kong) and one supports employer-led programs
Page 1 of 4
The Engineering Council of the United Kingdom, the Institution of Professional Engineers of New
Zealand, and the Institution of Professional Engineers of Japan support continuing professional
development programs by offering courses and endorsing employer-led programs
The Engineering Council of South Africa has a mandatory continuing professional development
program
APEC Engineers and members of the Engineers Mobility Forum of the International Engineering
Alliance are required to maintain their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level
FEANI (Fdration Europenne d'Associations Nationales d'Ingnieurs, or the federation of
professional engineering associations from 31 European countries) urges all of its national member
organizations to adopt continuing professional development requirements
All Engineering Acts state that the mandate of the association is protection of the public
In order for the public to be protected, engineers must practise competently.
All Codes of Ethics have a requirement for professional engineers to only practice in areas where
they are competent.
Career changes are common, which results in professional engineers needing to acquire new skills
throughout their careers:
The typical US worker today is holding a job which has lasted or will last eight years 2
By age 44, individuals born between 1957 and 1964 in the US had an average of eleven jobs 3
Engineering is a technology-based profession and the rate of change of technology is increasing
For example: computer speed (per unit cost) doubled every three years between 1910 and
1950, doubled every two years between 1950 and 1966, and is now doubling every year 4
This increasing rate of change as well as increasing specialization create rapid change in knowledge
requirements within professional practice.
Assessment Strategies Inc., Licensure, Certification, and Continuing Competence Practices among Canadian
Regulated Professions, March 1999.
2
The Importance of Lifetime Jobs in United States Economy Robert E. Hall, Stanford University,
http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/Importance-AER-Sep-1982.pdf
3
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. News Release #USDL-10-1243 September 10, 2010.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf
4
Kurzweil, Ray (2001, Essay: The Law of Accelerating Returns)
CPD Guiding Principles and Research.doc
Page 2 of 4
Some observers have suggested that there is a new cynicism on the part of government and society
in regards to the system of self-regulation 5
The perceived societal value of professional self-regulation tends to ebb and flow, and currently
scepticism of the societal value of professional self-regulation is at an all time high.
Professional organizations are under increased scrutiny by government, the public, media, and
consumer groups.
This scepticism has resulted in meta-regulation (regulating the regulators, or controlling the
process of regulation itself).
Examples of meta-regulation include provincial Fairness legislation, the federal Agreement on
Internal Trade and the loss of self-regulation in the British healthcare system.
It is therefore increasingly important that the engineering regulators not only work to protect the
public, but also ensure that they are seen to be protecting the public.
Engineering Associations employ a number of techniques to assess the credentials and promote the
improvement of professional competence including having admission standards, continuing
professional development programs, practice guidelines, practice reviews of individuals or firms,
and disciplinary orders. These techniques have the following advantages and disadvantages:
Technique
Admission standards
Advantage
Thorough check of credentials
Continuing Professional
Development Program
Practice Guidelines
Practice Reviews
Investigation Process
Investigations as a result
of a public complaint
Disciplinary Orders
Disadvantage
Only performed once, at point of
entry to the profession
Registrants resistance to
mandatory programs
CPD hours competence
Use of the guidelines is at the
discretion of each engineer
Only a minority of professional
engineers are evaluated
Reactive measure only
Reactive measure with a narrow
focus
Reactive measure only
Page 3 of 4
Engineering Associations will retain the trust and confidence of the public and government in order
to retain the privilege of self-regulation
Adopting profession development program requirements will put engineering associations on a par
with other regulated professions
Similar requirements across Canada will improve acceptance of such programs with registrants
thereby easing implementation, and will lower the administrative burden for the associations in an
age of increasing mobility of professionals
Page 4 of 4
C-476-2.4
Appendix E(i)
Policy Directions
Canadian engineering regulators should establish uniform policies and procedures regarding the
acceptance and use of international recognition agreements.
Key Considerations
1. Upholding and protecting the public interest in Canada in the practice of professional
engineering is the foremost goal in negotiating international recognition agreements for the
engineering profession.
2. A broad consensus of the engineering regulators must support the decision to enter into
negotiations of any new international recognition agreement, under an agreed protocol.
3. International recognition agreements may recognize some or all of the Canadian licensure
requirements (academic, work experience, language, law & ethics, and good character).
4. International recognition agreements serve to facilitate foreign qualification recognition in
Canada and the mobility of Canadian professional engineers abroad.
5. International recognition agreements should include provisions for reporting numbers of
applicants between jurisdictions.
Adherence to these Key Considerations will enable the creation of a legislative framework for every
engineering regulator that provides for the appropriate treatment of international recognition
agreements.
NOTE: Research and results from the consultation for this element can be found on the CFL SharePoint site. Details
for implementation will be developed at Step 7.
C-476-2.4
Appendix E(ii)
Texas
(2010)
NAFTA
APEGBC
APEGGA
APEGS
APEGM
PEO
OIQ
APEGNB
Engineers PEI
PEGNL
APEY
NAPEG
Ireland
(2009)
Hong
Kong
(2004)
Australia
(2007)
APEC
Status of International
Agreements with
Constituent Associations
CTI *
(2006)
Engineers Canada has entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements at the full professional level with
entities licensing engineers in other countries. In addition, Engineers Canada is a member of the
International Engineering Alliance, which supports the register of APEC engineers. The following table
summarizes which associations have ratified those agreements or use the register.
In addition, some associations have concluded their own agreements, or made decisions related to
international applicants, as follows:
APEGBC
APEGGA
APEGS
APEGM
OIQ
Page 1 of 3
Although many US states allow applicants to register by comity if they are licensed in another
state, this process simply exists to allow applicants to show that they have already met the same
requirements for licensure as each state requires (accredited degree, FE & PE exams, references) as
opposed to re-writing their exams, providing proof of degree, etc.
Only Texas has entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements.
Many of the members of the International Engineering Alliance also have Mutual Recognition
Agreements with one another, or offer membership to those who are registered with another
member of the Alliance. The members who participate in such activities include:
o Australia (Engineers Australia )
o Chinese Taipei (Chinese Institute of Engineers)
o Hong Kong China (Hong Kong Institution of Engineers)
o India (Institution of Engineers India)
o Ireland (Engineers Ireland)
o Japan (Institution of Professional Engineers Japan)
o Korea (Korean Professional Engineers Association)
o Malaysia (Institution of Engineers Malaysia)
o New Zealand (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand)
o Singapore (Institution of Engineers Singapore)
o South Africa (Engineering Council of South Africa)
o Sri Lanka (Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka)
o United Kingdom (Engineering Council United Kingdom)
The Federation of Law Societies has established a National Committee on Accreditation to examine
the qualifications of foreign applicants, but they have not entered into Mutual Recognition
Agreements.
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has discontinued the process of assessing
Postgraduate Medical Education systems (PGME) for International Medical Graduate (IMG)
applicants seeking their certification, and they do not enter into Mutual Recognition Agreements.
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants not only enters into Mutual Recognition
Agreements, but has publicly-available guidelines for those organizations wishing to pursue such an
agreement with them. Agreements currently exist with Australia, Belgium, France, Ireland, Hong
Kong, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
Architecture Canada (the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada) is the monitoring committee for
the APEC register of architects, and Architecture Canada also seeks to facilitate the negotiation of
mutual recognition agreements.
Mutual Recognition Agreements serve several purposes they facilitate the licensing of some
international applicants, they provide a service for Canadian engineers who practice abroad, and
Page 2 of 3
they allow the Canadian engineering profession to interact with the global engineering community.
See the attached Value Statement for MRAs v8.doc.
Of the international applicants for licensure across Canada in 2009, 11.8% applied under an
academic level international agreement. In 2009, 1.2% of these applicants came from countries
which had full professional level Mutual Recognition Agreements with Engineers Canada at that
time (Australia, Hong Kong & Ireland). Of those 1.2% (69 applicants), only 8 individuals actually
applied under the conditions of a Mutual Recognition Agreement.
In Quebec, OIQ does not have the authority to ratify full professional level Mutual Recognition
Agreements. This authority rests with the Office des Professions
Because of the Agreement on Internal Trade, applicants who are accepted through any international
agreement by one association gain access to all associations.
It is recommended that the following Guiding Principles form the basis for the development
of a process to negotiate international agreements:
1. Upholding and protecting the public interest in Canada is the foremost goal in
2.
3.
4.
5.
Page 3 of 3
C-476-3.1
Prepared by: Mrta Ecsedi, P.Eng., Chair of the Equity and Diversity Committee.
Motion Sponsor: Rakesh Shreewastav, P.Eng.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Process
Followed
Council
Identified
Review
Actual
Motion
Review
5. Appendices
Appendix A Chronology and Motion History
Appendix B Equity and Diversity Policy
Page 2 of 2
C-476-3.1
Appendix A
Appendix A: Chronology and motion history PEO Equity and Diversity Policy
Meeting Date
Motion Approved
Motion carried:
That Council create an Inclusivenss Committee that assesses issues of concern
to women, aboriginal members, and other under-represented groups on
regulatory PEO matters and makes recommendations to PEO on these matters.
March 2, 2007
Council
Motion carried:
That:
1. Council receive the Equity and Diversity Position Paper, dated January 9,
2007, as presented to the meeting, Appendix C-438-8(a).
2. The Equity and Diversity Committee :
i. Seek input on its Position paper, dated January 9, 2007, as presented to
the meeting;
ii. Prepare an action plan on the Position Paper; and
iii. Report back to Council for approval of the Position Paper
Motion carried:
That the recommendations of the Equity and Diversity Committee contained in
Section 7 of its Position Paper, dated May 30, 2007, as presented to the
meeting at agenda Appendix C-441-14(a), be approved.
March 9, 2010
Executive
Committee
Recommendation accepted:
That a legal review of the draft Equity and Diversity Policy be undertaken to
ensure it is not contrary to provincial laws.
February 18,
2011
Council
Motion carried:
That Council approve the Equity and Diversity Policy and Guidelines for
Implementation of the Equity and Diversity Policy, as presented in C-468-5.8,
Appendix B and C-468-5.8, Appendix C, respectively.
C-476-3.1
Appendix B
7. That PEO seek to identify and work to remove barriers that limit access to its services and programs
in areas such as information dissemination, human resources, physical space, and cultural difference.
Definitions
For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply:
Equity
Equity is the result of a comprehensive pro-active strategy designed to ensure that all members of society
have fair and equal access to opportunities. Equity initiatives may include removing or neutralizing barriers
that might limit the participation of individual stakeholders in PEO processes, procedures or activities.
Diversity
Diversity refers to characteristics that make people different from each other. As listed in the Ontario Human
Rights Code, these differences include race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed,
sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. Where this policy applies to employees
of PEO, the additional difference of record of offences is included.
Respect for the diversity of gender, race, culture, ethnicity, age, abilities, religion and sexual
orientation is taken into account in practices and policies with relation to governance, volunteer
service and employment,
Open, responsive and respectful communication with all staff, volunteers, members, applicants, and
other stakeholders in the communities served by PEO,
Collaboration and partnership with the community in interactions regarding issues of equity and
diversity, as well as with staff, members, and other stakeholders, and
Consideration of equity and diversity in all PEOs operations as measured through research,
monitoring of training and development, cultural interpretation and community partnerships.
It is expected that the policy will be integrated into the workings of PEO through a phased approach.
Monitoring and evaluation of compliance will take this into account.
The core challenge for PEO is to create an organizational culture that fosters critical self-reflection, where we
are all accountable for learning about and appreciating differences among our employees, applicants,
members and partners. Equity and diversity awareness and capacity building is an ongoing, evolving,
learning process for all PEO stakeholders.
PEOs Position Paper on Equity and Diversity states that, through the EDC, PEO will develop an initial 3-year
equity and diversity action plan that includes:
Data collection.
Mechanisms to monitor awareness, understanding, compliance and effectiveness of the equity and
diversity policy.
Assessment of impact of change initiatives e.g. training and development, cultural interpretation and
community partnerships.
Guidelines related to numbered Policy Statements:
1.
That PEO Council demonstrates leadership regarding equity and diversity, including review of its own
processes and training programs and seeks new ways for PEO to strive to be responsible and
answerable to its members, staff and stakeholders on these matters.
Year 1 Objective
Council members facilitate EDCs data collection through member survey and self-identification, and
functionality review of current membership database.
Year 2 Objective
All of Council Executive and two-thirds of Councillors attend E&D training.
Council Agenda item to discuss review of its own processes and new ways to ensure the organization
is responsible and answerable to its members, staff and stakeholders on these matters.
2.
That PEO deliver ongoing information, training and resource support to help all staff, volunteers,
committee and board members develop capacity to address equity and diversity issues and
understand their rights and responsibilities. That such training is a fundamental part of orientation for
new volunteers and staff.
Year 1 Objective
The CEO/Registrar requires staff responsible for Engineering Dimensions and Council requires
volunteers responsible for Regional Congresses to communicate the content of the Equity and
Diversity Policy and Guidelines to PEO members and staff.
Year 2 Objective
Council includes attendance at E&D training as a performance expectation for Committee Chairs and
staff responsible for committees.
3.
That PEO seek to incorporate equity and diversity provisions in its organizational decision-making,
visioning and strategic planning.
Note: Policy Statement 3 is a long term-goal as part of a phased-in approach to Policy implementation.
Year 2 Objective
Based on the results of the Year 1 activities described in this document, EDC will recommend to
Council an appropriate response to Policy Statement 3.
4.
That PEO develop ways to support committees and task forces in incorporating specific, measurable
equity and diversity provisions into their annual work and human resource plans.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to develop guidelines as to what they want the committees to embed in the process.
Year 2 Objective
People Development staff and Committee Advisors to provide support to volunteer committee
members in this activity.
5.
That plans for outreach to prospective licensees be analysed for sensitivity to the diversity of Ontarios
culture as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code. That such activities be reported on in annual
program reviews.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to communicate policy objectives at Regional Congresses.
Year 2 Objective
PEO mentorship programs are modified to incorporate outreach to and representation of diverse
groups.
6.
That PEO provide guidance to staff and volunteers about their roles in implementing this policy.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to develop information sessions about the Policy.
Year 2 Objective
Sessions are attended by one-third of Chapter and committee volunteers and PEO staff.
Overview of sessions is published in Engineering Dimensions and posted on the PEO website.
7.
That PEO actively solicit viewpoints from diverse groups (as defined by the OHRC) within PEO and in
the communities it serves and seeks to serve.
Year 1
Member survey (see Action Plan, on pg. 1) to involve ACV in ensuring outreach to diverse groups
within PEO.
Year 2
EDC and ACV to collaborate on gathering feedback about understanding and effectiveness of the
equity and diversity policy within PEO.
8.
That PEOs activities in recruitment and retention of staff and volunteers have a focus on achieving
equity and increasing diversity within the engineering profession.
Year 1
Engineering Dimensions and the PEO website be analyzed for E&D in its representations of engineers
and PEO stakeholders. Collaborate with ACV on volunteer orientation program.
Year 2
Evaluate results of year one and plan ongoing activities and training.
9.
That PEO seek to identify and work to remove barriers that limit access to its services and programs in
areas such as information dissemination, human resources, physical space, and cultural difference.
Year 1
CEO to instruct IT department to set up and publicize on the PEO website an interactive forum to
identify accessibility limits to the site.
Year 2
EDC works with Committee and Chapter Chairs to implement recommendations from the forum.
Briefing Note-Decision
C-476-3.2
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
1. Practitioners believe that the only problem that needs to be addressed is the
lack of consistency in the quality of construction drawings and the lack of
coordination between designers.
2. Construction drawings are often incomplete, lack detail and appropriate
information.
3. Though some stated that there was no problem with the current field review
process some suggested that each aspect of the building structural system
should be reviewed by the engineer responsible for its design.
4. There was nearly unanimous agreement that there is no need to have a single
engineer take responsibility for the design of the entire building or for
conducting field review of the entire building.
5. The respondents did suggest that there should be a single engineer in each
discipline (for example, the designer of the primary structural system) who is
responsible for coordinating information flow between the various other
engineers providing designs in that discipline; however this engineer is not
responsible for those designs.
2. Current Situation
In Ontario, there is a requirement in the Ontario Building Code that all applications for
a building permit include drawings for the proposed building or alteration. The
Professional Engineers Act stipulates that professional engineers design buildings of
specific types.
The Professional Engineers Act requires all professional engineers providing these
drawings to be competent, to take responsibility for the work they undertake and to
seal the documents provided as an acknowledgment that they are taking responsibility.
The engineer who prepared the permit drawings often designs only the bare skeleton
of the building and provides only instructions to the other engineers who will design all
the other components. In a typical construction project, there may be many engineers
who have sealed drawings for various aspects of the work. Many of these drawings are
shop drawings prepared by contractors, manufacturers, or fabricators for items such as
the cladding, window systems, trusses and other structural components, and
miscellaneous steel for stairs and balconies. Each of the engineers sealing the shop
drawings for the various aspects of the work has exactly the same legal obligations and
liabilities as the engineer sealing the permit drawing. There is no distinction in any
legislation in Ontario between the engineer responsible for the permit drawings and the
engineers responsible for the drawings of the subsystems.
The Ontario Building Code further requires that the permit applicant retain professional
engineers to provide general review of all systems designed by a professional
engineer. Regulation 260/08 provides a practice standard for general review of
construction and PEO has a guideline covering this work. Generally, the general review
is carried out by the designer; however, this is not a requirement in either the Building
Code or the Professional Engineers Act.
Page 2 of 3
3. Next Steps
If Council approves Motion #2 the Professional Standards Committee will direct the
Structural Engineering Guideline Subcommittee to develop guideline recommendations
or standards that identify a specific practitioner on each project who will be responsible
for coordinating the flow of design information to all practitioner involved in the design
and review of structural components. That engineer will also be responsible for
reviewing shop drawings of all structural components to ensure that the various
elements can be assembled into a complete structure with no conflicts and no missing
elements.
The subcommittee will also develop standards for complete drawings on all aspects of
the structural system.
The Professional Standards Committee will consider how to extend this concept to the
mechanical and electrical disciplines and will form subcommittees as needed to
address this policy.
However, it is recognized that though PEO may wish a single engineer in each
discipline to take on this coordinating role, owners and developers may decide not to
provide for it in their contractual undertakings with engineers. PEO cannot impose on
an owner or developer the obligation to provide the designated engineer with the
authority or additional renumeration to carry out this work. Therefore, it is necessary to
encourage the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to change the Ontario Building
Code to make it an obligation on owners and developers to give this coordinating to an
engineer in each discipline. This is what occurred in British Columbia, Alberta and
Manitoba. It was not the engineering associations that made the coordinating role
possible; it was the provincial government agency that controlled the building code.
Therefore, Council, if it decides that implementing the coordinating professional
engineer is an important objective, will need to define a plan for working with the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other stakeholders to revise the Building
Code to direct owners to retain a professional engineer in each discipline as a
coordinating engineer.
4. Appendices
Appendix A Policy Analysis
Appendix B Results, Post-Meeting Engineer of Record Survey
Appendix C Minutes, Structural Engineering in Buildings Guideline Subcommittee
Meeting, Janaury 11, 2012
Appendix D Letters of Assurance (British Columbia)
Appendix E General Review Commitment Form (Ontario)
Page 3 of 3
C-476-3.2
Appendix A
ENGINEER OF RECORD
Engineer of Record
The following analysis is based on a review of information and opinions provided by the
following:
1. discussions at the special meeting on the Engineer of Record that took place at PEO on
October 25, 2011
2. survey of members who attended the October 25, 2011 meeting
3. discussions at various meetings of the Structural Engineering in Buildings Guideline
Subcommittee
4. review of Building Codes in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia
5. review of Guidelines produced by APEGBC and APEGGA
6. email correspondence with Peter Mitchell, P. Eng., Director or Professional Practice,
APEGBC
7. correspondence from PEO members regarding the proposal
Definition of Issue
Council, at its September 2011 meeting, directed the CEO/Registrar and the Professional
Standards Committee to study and propose amendments to O. Reg. 941 and O. Reg. 260/08 to
incorporate an Engineer of Record. The motion indicates that the engineer of record
regulations will prescribe the following:
1. A single engineer who takes responsibility for the completeness and integrity of the
entirety of all design work done in each discipline (structural, electrical, or mechanical)
2. That field review for each system of the building under construction be done by the
engineer taking responsibility for that discipline.
Background
First, we must clarify what is meant by Engineer of Record. This term currently has no legal
definition in Ontario; it is merely a colloquialism. It is not a term of art widely used in the
industry so as to provide a generally accepted definition. The term is used differently by different
people in different contexts. Sometimes, the term is meant simply to indicate the engineer who
has sealed a drawing or other document. In this sense, all engineers who take responsibility for
work can be considered engineers of record. There can be several engineers taking responsibility
for various aspects of the design within a single discipline. For example, there could be design
engineers for the foundation, primary structural system design, fabricated steel components, and
miscellaneous steel components such as stairs and railings.
Building departments often use the term to mean the engineer who signed the General
Commitment form since that is the engineer on their records whom they are expected to contact
during construction. Since there is no legal requirement for the engineer who prepared the permit
drawings to carry out general review, the engineer called the engineer of record by the building
department is not necessarily the design engineer.
The term engineer of record is occasionally used informally by many people in Ontario to refer
to the engineer who prepared and sealed the permit drawings. Again there is no justification for
this use of the term in this way.
The engineer who prepared the permit drawings often designs only the bare skeleton of the
building and provides only instructions for the other engineers who will design all the other
components. In a typical construction project, there may be many engineers who have sealed
drawings for various aspects of the work. Many of these drawings are shop drawings prepared by
contractors, manufacturers, or fabricators for items such as the cladding, window systems,
trusses and other structural components, and miscellaneous steel for stairs and balconies. Each of
the engineers sealing the shop drawings for the various aspects of the work has exactly the same
legal obligations and liabilities as the engineer sealing the permit drawing. There is no distinction
in any legislation in Ontario between the engineer responsible for the permit drawings and the
engineers responsible for the drawings for the subsystems.
Since the structural drawings prepared for permit generally only provide the design of the
primary structural system this usage of the term is similar to the definition created by the Council
of American Structural Engineers (CASE):
The Structural Engineer of Record (SER) "perform[s] or supervise[s] the analysis, design,
and document preparation for the building structure and has knowledge of the
requirements for the load carrying structural system." The SER is responsible for the
design of the primary structural system, which is "the completed combination of elements
which serve to support the building's self-weight, the applicable live load which is based
upon the occupancy and use of the spaces, [and] the environmental loads such as wind,
seismic, and thermal."
In the CASE definition, the SER is responsible only for the primary structural system and has no
obligation to carry out field review.
However, this does not seem to be the intent of the proposal that was placed before Council. The
intent seems to be to create a position created by PEO regulations known as the engineer of
record who is responsible for overall coordination of all aspects of the building structure and for
general review of construction. However, the exact nature of the role and responsibilities
anticipated for the engineer of record was not clearly expressed in the motion so it is difficult to
ascertain what amendments to Regulations 941 and 260/08 are needed. This analysis will attempt
to clarify the many issues surrounding the possible roles and responsibilities that might be
assigned to an engineer of record in order to give Council the opportunity to clearly define its
intent.
Environmental Scan
The first step in this analysis is to review any similar positions currently in use in other Canadian
jurisdictions.
Three provinces British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have defined something similar to
the proposed concept of engineer of record in legislation. In each case the role is established
through the provincial Building Code not the legislation regulating the practice of professional
engineering.
i. British Columbia
There is a requirement in BC, established by the British Columbia Building Code (BCBC), for a
professional (either a professional engineer or architect) who is responsible for coordinating the
work of all design professionals working on the building project. This person is referred to as the
Coordinating Registered Professional. The description provided in Division C , Appendix A of
the BC Building Code under Item A-2.2.7.2(1)(a) Coordinating Registered Professional reads as
follows: The coordinating registered professional is responsible to ascertain that all Code
related aspects which are relevant to the project are clearly identified by each of the registered
professionals in the collection of Schedules B. If a registered professional of record has crossed
out any item on their Schedule B, the coordinating registered professional must confirm this item
is not applicable to the project or resolve the issue with the registered professional of record.
This is the position commonly referred to as the prime consultant. The APEGBC Guidelines
provides the following definition of this role:
A member of APEGBC, or a member of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia,
who has the responsibility to coordinate the design and field reviews of various registered
professionals for a building project. The role of the CRP is clearly defined in Division C,
Appendix A-2.2.7 in the BCBC and further documented in the Letters of Assurance
contained in the BCBC.
As noted in the above definition, the requirement for a Coordinating Registered Professional is
established in the Building Code. This is so because it is a requirement on the owner of the
project to retain a person who will fulfill this coordinating role. The Engineer and Geoscientist
Act (BC), like the Professional Engineers Act, does not provide the engineering regulator with
powers to impose obligations on persons other than members of the association. Therefore,
APEBGC cannot dictate to the owner of a building project to hire professional engineers for
specific roles; only legislation that is specifically empowered to govern the property owners,
such as the Building Code, can impose such requirements.
The BCBC also establishes the requirement for a Registered Professional of Record (RPR) who
is retained to undertake design work and field review for specific building systems. There is no
requirement for single RPR in each disciple or for the RPR to take responsibility for all the work
in a single discipline.
In British Columbia the Building Code is administered by the Building & Safety Standards
Branch, Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General. This department has published a Guide to
the Letters of Assurance in the B.C. Building Code. That guide states:
Most building projects described in Section 2.2.7 in Part 2 of Division C involve more
than one registered professional in more than one discipline, and often more than one
registered professional within a single discipline. Each registered professional is
responsible for the design and field review of the components of the plans and
supporting documents prepared by them.
The Guide also indicates that the RPR responsible for design does not need to be the one who
conducts field review of the building while it is under construction.
The Letters of Assurance were developed on the basis that the coordinating registered
professional and registered professionals of record would maintain their involvement
throughout the entire design and field review process. There may be rare
circumstances where this approach cannot be implemented due to a variety of causes.
The guide provides four examples of these rare cases including termination of the contract with
the RPR or CRP and the need to have a different RPR involved due to geographic distance. The
guide then provides a process for notification of the building department if any one of the
examples or a similar circumstance occurs.
The only RPR referred to in APEGBC guidelines is the structural engineer of record. The
APEGBC Guidelines for Professional Structural Engineering Services for Part 3 Building
Projects defines the structural engineer of record as follows:
Structural Engineer of Record (SER) or RPR for the Primary Structural System
A member with general responsibility for the structural integrity of the primary structural
system and for general conformance of secondary structural elements and specialty
structural elements with the primary structural system. A SER may be required to be
registered as Struct.Eng. (see above). The SER takes overall responsibility as the RPR for
all items under the structural discipline on the Schedule B of the Letters of Assurance in
the BCBC.
The APEGBC guideline also clearly states that the structural engineers designing secondary and
specialty structures must sign and seal their drawings indicating that they are responsible for the
design of those components. This indicates that APEGBC does not recognize the need to have a
single professional engineer responsible for all the work in a given discipline.
In order to respond to the Building Code requirement, APEGBC created the licence category of
Designated Structural Engineer. To obtain this licence a P. Eng. must complete educational
requirements above and beyond those required for the professional engineer licence. This licence
category on its own provides no rights to the holder. As can be seen from the attached extract
from the APEGBC website, a Designated Structural Engineer (DSE) is required only when a
municipality makes this a requirement of their building permit process. Unless a municipality
specifies that the permit drawings must be prepared by a Designated Structural Engineer, any P.
Eng. can prepare the drawings. The point is that APEGBC cannot impose restrictions on who can
provide permit drawings. The only legal restriction that exists is the one provided by the
Engineers and Geoscientists Act (BC) that requires engineering design work to be done by a
professional engineer. The only way for APEGBC to provide the DSE with exclusive rights to
prepare the permit drawings (i.e. to fulfill the generally understood role of Engineer of Record)
would be to impose a restriction on all P. Eng. licences that prohibits all other professional
engineers from preparing drawings for primary structures of buildings. The restriction would be
lifted from the licence when the holder obtains the DSE. It should be noted that APEGBC has
not taken this step so, unless the municipality refuses to take permit drawings from non-DSE
professional engineers, any licensed member can provide permit drawings.
Note that the only purpose of the Designated Structural Engineer certification is to create a
restriction on who may provide structural drawings for building permit application. This applies
only to designs for the primary structural system. The DSE does not make the holder responsible
for coordinating or overseeing all other structural designs, does not provide the DSE with control
over designs for secondary structural systems, and does not require the DSE to conduct general
review of construction. Those responsibilities, if they exist, are requirements established by the
Building Code.
ii. Alberta
A similar regime for design responsibility is established in Alberta through the Alberta Building
Code. That legislation establishes the requirement for the owner intending to construct a building
to retain a Coordinating Registered Professional. The CRP is required to coordinate all design
work and field reviews of the registered professionals of record required for the project.
The Alberta Building Code also requires that there is a Registered Professional of Record for
each of the four major disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, and geotechnical).
According to the Commitment Form the Registered Professional of Record is required to
coordinate the design work and field review for that component of the project for which the
professional of record is responsible in order to ensure the design will comply with the Alberta
Building Code.
iii. Manitoba
The Manitoba Building Code does not define a structural engineer of record or any other similar
role. However, Sentence 2.2.2.3 of the Code defines designers as the architects or professional
engineers who prepared the documents submitted for the building permit. The code also makes
the designer responsible for doing the following:
2.2.7.2.(1) The designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer
shall review construction of any building or part thereof to determine conformance of the
design.
2.2.7.3.(1) The designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer
shall review all shop drawings and other related documents relevant to the design to
determine conformance with the design.
2.2.7.4.(1) Workmanship, materials and all reports of material tests shall be review by the
designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer during the
process of construction.
Therefore, the Manitoba Building Code requires the engineers who prepared the permit
documents must also review the building during construction and review all shop drawings to
ensure they conform to the design. Since the Code also has authority over the owners, they are
compelled to retain the designers for these additional roles.
Questions arising from the Environmental Scan
One consideration that any evaluation of the engineer of record issue must include is the
diversity of contractual arrangements that are utilized in the construction industry. In its simplest
form, a construction project involves three parties: an owner, a designer (architect or engineer),
the builder (usually called the general contractor). Traditionally, there are two contracts between
these parties as they work together to plan, design, and construct the project. The first contract is
the owner-designer contract, which involves planning, design, and construction administration.
The second contract is the owner-contractor contract, which involves construction. An indirect,
third-party relationship exist between the designer and the contractor due to these two contracts.
Though this arrangement was the traditional format it has been replaced, for many reasons, by
more complex arrangements.
An alternate contractual arrangement is design-build, in which the design and construction
services are contracted by a single entity known as the designbuild contractor. In contrast to
designtender arrangements, designbuild relies on a single point of responsibility contract and
is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by
overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project.
In this arrangement, the design-builder hires architects and engineers to provide documents that
are sufficient for obtaining a building permit. This set of drawings will not necessarily be
detailed enough for construction purposes.
Once the permit is obtained the design-builder tenders the work to various sub-contractors. The
contractors are required by the terms of their contracts to hire professional designers to provide
drawings for the various subsystems or to obtain these drawings from their suppliers.
Another alternative project delivery scheme is project management. Project management is
distinguished from traditional construction management practices by the following:
Many sophisticated owners such as governments, crown corporations, banks, school boards and large
developers prefer to retain control over the project and to disperse the work to various professionals as the
owner sees fit and as needed by the project.
These alternative project delivery systems were developed to provide owners with options to minimize
risk, reduce costs, and minimize construction period. Any attempt to impose a situation where the owner
loses control of this freedom by imposing requirements for specific professional involvement in the
project would have to come from the Building Code (as was done in the western provinces) and in such
case would face stiff opposition from owners.
An engineer of record who, as proposed, is taking responsibility for all the engineering work
would have to exert control over engineers retained or employed by many different parties to the
construction project. If PEO imposed a requirement for a single engineer to exercise control over
these other engineers that engineer would likely have to direct the other engineers to carry out
work. However, there would be no contractual arrangement between the EOR and those other
engineers. This would create problems for the EOR who would have no authority in contract to
compel other engineers to change their designs or carry out additional work.
There is nothing in the building regulatory regimes for any of the provinces listed that indicates
that a single engineer is to take responsible for the overall design of each engineering discipline.
Though there is a requirement for a Coordinating Registered Professional (CRP), that person
may be either an engineer or architect and is equivalent to what was called the Prime Consultant.
The CRP does not take responsibility for the work of the other professional designers; the CRP is
responsible only for managing the relationships between the other designers and coordinating the
flow of information.
Current Ontario Regulatory Position
As in the other provinces, there is a division of jurisdiction between the regulation of the practice
of professional engineering and the regulation of the construction process. The practice of
professional engineering is governed by the Professional Engineers Act and the construction
process is governed by the Building Code Act. The Professional Engineers Act defines the
practice of professional engineering as any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating,
advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering
principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public
welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act. Clearly, the design of structural,
mechanical, electrical and similar systems in buildings falls within the scope of this definition;
therefore, the design work must be done by professional engineers or other persons licensed to
practice professional engineering.
The Professional Engineers Act gives PEO the authority to regulate the practice of professional
engineering and to govern its members. Section 7 of the Act provides PEO with authority to
establish regulations that will affect persons holding a licence, wishing to hold a licence or
wishing to practice professional engineering in the province. Specifically, anyone wishing to
practice professional engineering must either obtain a licence to practice or practice under the
direction of a licence holder. Those wishing to obtain a licence must have the qualifications and
proceed through the process described in the regulations. Those holding a licence must carry out
their professional activities in a manner described in the regulations.
Despite these powers, the Act provides PEO with a limited regime of authority. Specifically, it
does not allow PEO to impose conditions on employers, clients, or other parties who may enter
into relationships with professional engineers. So it is unlikely that PEO can impose the
proposed EOR regime itself.
Though it is not required under the Professional Engineers Act, the Ontario Building Code
(OBC) requires that a professional engineer conduct a general review of the construction of
every system that was designed by a professional engineer. The OBC requires the owner of a
building to retain one or more professional engineers to carry out this general review. The owner
and the engineers are required to sign and include with the permit application a general review
commitment form to acknowledge that this work will be carried out. The General Review
Commitment Form is comparable to the Letters of Assurance that are used in British Columbia.
Copies of these forms are attached to the end of this analysis.
The General Review Commitment Form is a declaration that the identified engineers will
conduct general review. The Letters of Assurance require both this declaration and a declaration
that the various systems of the building designed by professional engineers comply with the
BCBC. It is unclear why this second declaration is necessary since it is the role of the building
plans examiners to ensure that the plans comply with the building code. There is nothing in the
Letters indicating that the engineer takes responsibility for the work of other engineers or to
coordinate this work. There is also nothing in the Letters that indicates that the engineer
responsible for preparing the design must be the engineer who conducts the general review of
construction. In fact the Letter has spaces for two different signatures and seals, one for design
and one for general review.
Current PEO Positions
Current PEO positions as articulated in regulations and guidelines recognize the Building Code
in Ontario does not provide the authority for requiring a single engineer take overall
responsibility for all aspects of work in a particular engineering. The Guideline for the Use of the
Professional Engineers Seal indicates that every engineer takes responsibility for the work
covered by the documents he or she seals. This includes shop drawings for building subsystems,
components and specialized products. In effective, the guideline is based on the practice that
many engineers contribute to a project and each individually takes responsibility for the designs
they prepare.
The Guideline for General Review of Construction specifically allows for the situation where the
general review engineer is not the designer of the work.
Unless they are also the designers of the work, general review engineers are not
responsible for the engineering associated with the plans and specifications
prepared for the works. When requested by the client or contractor, or when
dictated by lack of clarity in the project documentation, general review engineers
(a) Does PEO have the authority to establish a regulation that would impose an
obligation on an owner to retain a single engineer to take responsibility for all aspects of
a particular building system?
(b) Does PEO have the authority to establish a regulation that would require persons who
are not members of the association to be subject to the direction of an engineer to whom
they may have no contractual connection?
(c) What impact would the establishment of a regulation that required a single engineer to
take responsibility for all aspects of a particular building system have on the various
contractual relationships in the construction industry?
(d) Would the establishment of a regulation that required a single engineer to take
responsibility for all aspects of a particular building system be seen as interference with
the way in which an owner can retain professional engineers and thus as a constraint of
trade by the Competition Bureau?
(e) What impact would the establishment of a regulation that required a single engineer to
take responsibility for all aspects of a particular building system have on the liability of
(i) the engineer in question, and (ii) the engineers for whose work the engineer in
question is responsible?
Insurance Questions
Many of the consulting engineers who offered comments on this proposal also commented on the
increased liability that they would incur. They are very concerned about being responsible for
ensuring that the design work done by practitioners employed by other companies is correct and
complete. This seems to remove the liability from those other organizations.
The two major professional liability insurance providers were asked for their opinions on the
Engineer of Record proposal. One insurance provider has responded.
That insurer did not say that an engineer of record would be uninsurable but they did state that in
order to be insured for professional liability a professional engineer should be responsible only
for work that they perform or direct and that they should not take on responsibility that rightfully
belongs to other parties. Also, they should not take responsibility for matters over which they
lack control or are not sure about.
The insurer also said that when a design professional reviews the work performed by others,
that design professional can be drawn in to carry responsibility for any mishap that might occur
in respect to the reviewed work. Anyone reviewing work must therefore do a complete and
thorough analysis. Or in the alternative, the design professional must clearly qualify the nature
and terms of the review process. When independent parties review work of others, the process is
much more complex, time consuming and costly.
Where an Authority Having Jurisdiction (eg. municipality) has passed a bylaw requiring the seal of a
Designated Structural Engineer (Struct. Eng.).
APEGBC has recommended that, effective January 1, 2007, all municipalities in B.C. require the professional seal of
a registered Struct. Eng. for the Structural Engineer of Record for a Part 3 Building.
Under the current 2006 BC Building Code, the Part 3 buildings would include those as described by
Clause 2.1.2.1(1) (a) and (b) of the 1998 BC Building Code.
From the 2006 British Columbia Building Code Part 2.1.2.1 (1) (a) and (b):
"2.1.2.1 (1) Except as provided in Subsection 2.1.5 [Farm Buildings], Parts 3, 4, 5, and 6 apply to:
all buildings used for major occupancies classified as
- Group A, assembly occupancies,
- Group B, care or detention occupancies, or
- Group F, Division 1, high hazard industrial occupancies, and
all buildings exceeding 600m 2 in building area or exceeding 3 storeys in building height used for major
occupancies classified as
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bernie, in the order that they were posed following are my responses to your questions. In
addition, Derek Doyle (APEGBCs Executive Director) sent me an e-mail that he received from
Michael Hogan asking for information on APEGBCs approach to developing the Engineer of
Record and another e-mail from Denis Dixon as Chair of PEOs Professional Practice
Committee and President Elect raising some issues regarding Mr. Hogans request. So not to be
seen as interfering in a PEO issue which appears to have some sensitivity I will leave it to you to
forward the information I have provided as you see fit.
1.
What was the reason(s) for creating these designations? Who initiated the idea?
DSE (Struct. Eng. )
The creation of the DSE designation was initiated in response to Recommendation 7 of the
Commissioner Inquiry Station Square Development August 1988 (the Closkey Commission)
which arose out of the collapse of approximately 6400 square feet of a roof structure over an
occupied Save-On-Foods supermarket on April 23, 1988. Recommendation 7 in the
Commissioners Report reads as follows:
The bylaws of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of British
Columbia should be amended to require that before registration as a structural engineer, the
competency of the structural engineer be tested by a special written examination or
additional supervised training, or both. Only engineers who qualify in this way should be
eligible to professionally certify drawings and calculations of Part 4 structures under the
building code.
CRP (Coordinating Registered Professional)
The term CRP was initiated in response to Recommendation 2 of the Commissioner Inquiry
Station Square Development August 1988 (the Closkey Commission). Recommendation 2 in
the Commissioners Report reads as follows:
The building code should be amended to incorporate standard letters of assurance to be
used throughout the province in connection with buildings governed by Part 4 of the code.
These letters should be required of the owner, and of architectural, structural, mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical services which are provided directly or indirectly by professionals,
prime consultants and sub-consultants.
The APEGBC Special Review Committee which advised on how to implement the
recommendations from the Closkey Commission supported the inclusion of a coordinating
registered professional when the Letters of Assurance were introduced into the BC Building
Code in 1992. The thought being that by implementing a CRP, engineering design and field
review services would be better coordinated resulting in a better finished product.
2. We note that the CRP is defined in Division C, Appendix A-2.2.7 in the BCBC. Can you
provide us with that description?
The description provided in Division C , Appendix A of the BC Building Code under Item
A-2.2.7.2(1)(a) Coordinating Registered Professional reads as follows: The coordinating
registered professional is responsible to ascertain that all Code related aspects which are
relevant to the project are clearly identified by each of the registered professionals in the
collection of Schedules B. If a registered professional of record has crossed out any item on
their Schedule B, the coordinating registered professional must confirm this item is not
applicable to the project or resolve the issue with the registered professional of record.
Also please see page 13 of the The Guide to The Letters of Assurance in the BC Building
Code 2006, updated December 2010 which can be viewed at
http://www.bccodes.ca/2006GuideLoA.pdf. A more detailed explanation of the role of the
CRP is explained there.
As provided for in Division C , Appendix A of the BC Building Code under Item A2.2.7.2.(1)(b) the purpose of Schedule B is to clearly identify the appropriate registered
professional of record who has the overall responsibility in each discipline for compliance
with the various code-related aspects of the project. Detailed design of certain building
components may be undertaken by other registered professionals. The registered professional
of record is responsible for monitoring the design work and field review of the other
registered professionals within their discipline for components listed in Schedule B (see the
attachment included for a sample Schedule B which identifies the list of all the design
components included in Schedule B). In the event that the other registered professionals
provide design and field review, the registered professional of record must be satisfied that
such design and field reviews have been performed and is responsible for Schedule C-B.
3. What was member response to the introduction of these designations? Did they think this
change was necessary?
The grade of membership of Designated Structural Engineer (Struct.Eng.) was established in
2002 when 76% of the membership that voted in favour of the bylaw creating the
designation. The structural engineering community strongly supported this initiative and felt
it was necessary. They had a voluntary industry group called the Division of Structural
Engineers with a membership of about 250 in 2000. The membership of the Division of
Structural Engineers held several meeting and votes within their membership which
overwhelmingly supported the creation of the Struct.Eng. designation.
From the period of 1994/95 (when practice reviews were initiated) until 2001 the results of
practice reviews for those practicing in the structural discipline showed a lower level of
compliance then those practicing in other disciplines. In the initial years approximately 1/3
of the structural engineers reviewed in a given year (the number reviewed in a given year
varied from 40 to less than 10) were identified as requiring improvement . This finding of
approximately 1/3 of the structural engineers that were practice reviewed being identified as
requiring improvement continued until 2001 when the bylaw was introduced. Since the DSE
bylaw was introduced the results have improved.
The term Coordinating Registered Professional was introduced through revisions to the BC
Building Code which received input from APEGBC and its members back in 1990. The
concept of having a CRP was supported both by APEGBC and the Architectural Institute of
BC. Both Associations and their respective memberships saw this change as being needed.
The goal was to achieve more complete engineering services and designs which are better
coordinated with the work of other design team members.
4. What was the publics (building departments, owners, contractors, architects) response?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Building departments seem to be waiting for the provincial government to implement the
requirement for a Struct.Eng. to be placed in the BC Building Code (except in the three
municipalities that have implemented a requirement that the structural design of buildings
falling under Part 3 of the Building Code which have to be designed to Part 4 must be carried
out by a P.Eng. having the Struct.Eng. grade of membership). Owners only seem to be
responsive if it is required in order to get a building permit in a specific municipality. They
did express concern that a municipality not implement it until there were enough
Struct.Eng.s in place to deal with the demand so the development of Part 3 buildings were
not impeded. This did not seem to be an issue for contractors nor a concern for architects.
CRP
Building Departments are in favour of this as there is better coordination between the various
engineering disciplines involved in a buildings design and field review.
Owners and contractors are both in favour due to the same reason as above.
Architects are in favour due to the same reason as above and in most projects they act as the
CRP. Through the Schedule A Letter of Assurance in the BC Building Code the CRP has the
authority to oversee that the design work and field reviews of the various disciplines involved
are properly coordinated. The enhanced fees associated with these coordination services are
seen as a positive by architects as they are most often engaged by the client as a CRP on a
building project.
5. How many members have obtained a DSE? What proportion of the engineers doing
structural engineering in BC does this represent?
108 members have the Struct.Eng. designation and this probably represents approximately
10% of the professional engineers practicing structural engineering in BC (approximate
number as members are not required to identify their specific field of practice).
6. We have observed that there may be concerns about increased liability for the CRP? Was this
an issue in BC?
Not that I am aware of. You should discuss this directly with ENCON and other professional
liability insurance providers. APEGBC is aware that when a liability insurance claim is made
which is specific to a particular engineering design discipline the CRP is often included in
the claim as poor coordination may have contributed to the problem which gave rise to the
claim.
7. We note that APEGBC is leaving the requirement for a DSE and CRP to the municipalities.
Why?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
The provincial government has granted municipalities the legislated authority to require the
use of professional engineers having specialist designations for the carrying out of particular
professional activities related to the design of a building if that grade of membership has
been established by APEGBC. APEGBC has not been granted the legislated authority to
stipulate when a Struct.Eng. is required. APEGBC only has the authority to grant the grade of
membership to those who meet the qualifications.
CRP
Division C, Part 2 clause 2.2.7.2. 1) of the BC Building Code reads as follows;
Before an owner obtains a building permit from an authority having jurisdiction, the owner
shall
a) retain a coordinating registered professional to coordinate all design work
Municipalities have the authority to issue building permits so they require the submission of
a Schedule A Letter of Assurance identifying the CRP before a building permit is issued.
8. Have many municipalities have adopted the requirements?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Vancouver, Burnaby and Langley. See the attached bulletin issued by the City of Burnaby as
an example of how the requirement for a Struct.Eng. was implemented by one municipality.
CRP
As identified in Item 7 above the BC Building Code requires that a CRP be used in all
municipalities as all municipalities have adopted the BC Building Code.
9. For those municipalities that have adopted it, why did they?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
APEGBCs understanding is that municipalities adopting the requirement for a Struct.Eng.
did so in order to assure that the structural engineering expertise being applied to Part 3
buildings within their municipality had the highest level of training and expertise reflected in
a grade of membership granted by APEGBC.
CRP
Municipalities have adopted the requirement for a CRP because of the provisions in the BC
Building Code which made it mandatory.
10. For those that have not, why are they not?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Some have expressed concern that there are not enough engineers with the Struct.Eng.
designation in their geographical area to meet the demand so that travel costs would be
incurred in order to bring in a Struct.Eng. from outside the area in order to complete a
particular project. Some municipalities do not see the justification and will only implement
the requirement for a Struct.Eng. if it is stipulated in the BC Building Code.
CRP
The requirement for a CRP applies to all municipalities because the provisions in the BC
Building Code make it mandatory.
11. The definition of field review in the APEGBC guideline says that the fields reviews are
provided by the registered professional of record responsible for the primary structural
system (the structural engineer of record), or the structural engineer providing supporting
structural engineering services to the registered professional of record. How is this enforced?
Is there legislation that says field review must be done by the designer? Under what
jurisdiction does APEGBC compel an owner to employ the designer as the field reviewer?
We find in Ontario that for many reasons the owner or architect do not want to have the
designer to continue as the field reviewer. Does this happen in BC?
There is no legislation requiring that field reviews be carried out by the structural engineer of
record that completed the design of the primary structural system. However this concept is
reinforced in three ways:
i) The Schedule B Letter of Assurance in the BC Building Code (see attached) only
provides for the name of one P.Eng. that is taking responsibility for the design and field
review activities so this promotes that both activities be undertaken by the same P.Eng.
ii) The Guide to The Letters of Assurance in the BC Building Code 2006, updated
December 2010 which is located on the provincial governments website at
http://www.bccodes.ca/2006GuideLoA.pdf includes text on page 17 that reads as follows;
It was also contemplated that the registered professional of record who signed a
Schedule B would be the same registered professional of record who signed the
Schedule C-B for that discipline. In order to maintain clear allocations of
responsibility and to avoid coordination and accountability gaps, this is the preferred
approach for all projects.
There may be rare circumstances where this approach cannot be implemented due to
a variety of causes.
The guideline then proceeds to provide some examples.
This concept is then further reinforced on page 21 of the Guide as it reads as follows;
The Letters of Assurance are based on the preferred and most common concept that
there is a single registered professional of record within each discipline who is
responsible for both the design and field review associated with that discipline. The
division of responsibilities for design and field review to two separate registered
professionals of record is undesirable and should be avoided. However, there are
instances, where a single, continuing registered professional of record within a
discipline may not be possible, and design and field review are performed by different
registered professionals of record.
iii) This is reinforced in the APEGBC Guidelines for Professional Structural Engineering
Services for Part 3 Building Projects. APEGBC has no jurisdiction to compel an owner
to employ the designer as the field reviewer.
Yes, in BC we find that the owner or architect may find reasons so that the designer does
not always continue as the field reviewer. Again we attempted to address this through the
three examples provided in my response to Item 11.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or require any clarification.
Peter
Peter R. Mitchell, P.Eng. | Director, Professional Practice, Standards & Development
Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of BC
200-4010 Regent Street, Burnaby, BC V5C 6N2
Direct: 604-412-4853 / Toll Free: 1-888-430-8035 ext. 4853
Fax: 604-430-8085
www.apeg.bc.ca
C. Rahimi:
E. Poon:
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic:
M. Moffat:
J. Mark:
D. Tipler:
D. Ireland:
D. Garbuio:
Discussion about whether there should be requirements for all other disciplines to have
an engineer of record.
K. Chessman:
D. Ireland:
D. Tipler.
S. John:
D. Tipler:
N. Kennedy:
J. Mark:
D. Ireland:
B. Ennis:
from
D. Ireland:
D. Tipler:
D. Ireland:
on
non-primary
elements.
B. Ennis:
Is an SER necessary?
N. Kennedy:
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic:
N. Kennedy:
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic:
R. Morrison:
N. Kennedy:
R. Morrison:
N. Kennedy:
There was general discussion about how the quality of drawings has deteriorated over
the years - cutting fees, cutting corners, increasing complexity of project organization,
financing; yet the practices are being condensed. Each downturn in the economy
reduces the quality of engineering service to a new norm. Preparers of drawings are
often relying on others to find problems and missing information.
There are many non-engineers providing detailed drawings for fabricators; some using
structural design software for which they do not understand the theory. This group
needs to prevent the problems of responsibility that lie in the grey areas between a
fabricators poorly-designed weld of a hangar and the engineers incorrect sizing of a
beam.
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic:
N. Kennedy:
Who is responsible for curtain wall design, glazing shop drawings? Steel stud panel
design?
D. Tipler: Structural Engineer is responsible for design of structural system, not curtain
wall design. Also, glazing shop drawings never come in structural office for review.
N. Kennedy: Architect has to pass glazing drawings to structural engineer. The Primary
Structural Consultant has to determine that somebody competent did the drawings.
D. Ireland: If I did design, I would specify design loads on my drawings. Regarding
the work of other designers on the project such as steel stud panel design, at least we
should confirm they used the right design criteria.
D. Tipler: Unfortunately, engineers are not paid to specify all loads on drawings and
dont have a time.
S. John: If we clearly define in the Guideline the duties and responsibilities of structural
engineers, Owners will have to start paying for everything.
D. Tipler: The other designers should use the loads per current building code, not
expect us to provide all loads.
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: We have to define the primary and secondary structural
system. There may be some projects where curtain wall design or glazing design does
not affect the primary structure, and design loads can be used from building code so
primary structural engineer does not have to specify loads. However, joist design,
structural steel connection design etc. does not fall in that category.
Ex. Structural steel connection designers work directly depends on the design criteria
and loads primary structural engineer specified (or not) on his/her drawings.
N. Kennedy: We have to address the issues:
-field review and design review
-design of secondary structure: should it be on off the structural drawings?
Loads should be shown for the reference and for other designer to use them.
M. Moffat: Loading information should come to EOR for verification. EOR has to
provide the loads.
On page 6, PEO Guideline, Phase2 regarding the construction documents:
I think we should go back to should, not shall since it is the Guideline, not the
standard.
K. Chessman: Back to definitions of primary and second-tier structural engineer on
page 4 of PEO Guideline. Dont like the term Second-tier structural engineer.
It should be the Specialty engineer.
D. Ireland: I agree. Many people can be offended with this term.
N. Kennedy: I think there is mistake. It should be secondary structural engineer.
March 8, 2011
There was discussion regarding the possibility of a single engineer to take
responsibility of protecting the public. An SER is needed to do this for structural. N.
Kennedy suggested that the SER is not necessarily a designer; the guideline should
not assume that the SER is a designer. D. Ireland would prefer to see the primary
structure designer as the SER. Discussion followed.
Example of an arena where 80% of the project is pre-engineered and 20% is
conventional steel. What would be the primary steel structure in this case? Each
engineer is responsible for his own work; the SER is responsible for ensuring that all
structural engineers are aware of design criteria.
In many cases, the designer of the primary structure is involved in the project only until
For Construction drawings are completed (especially work for Federal Government,
work for large institutions with their own field review of staff, etc.). Engineers
designing secondary, specialty or subcomponent systems do not become involved in
the project until after the tendering process is completed and the contract awarded. If
an SER is required, this position would have to be continuous from the start of the
project until all design work is completed. How can PEO impose this requirement on
owners? PEO has no authority to dictate what non-engineers do, so if an owner wants
to retain different engineers in different phases of the work, he may.
APEGBC has provided within its own by-laws for the status of the Designated
Structural Engineer and has created guidelines for this role. However, as noted by
APEGBC, it is only the municipalities that have authority to require a Structural
Engineer of Record on a project. Vancouver, for example, has passed a by-law
requiring that certain classes of buildings must have a Structural Engineer of Record.
Engineers, Architects and Building Officials recently suggested that MMAH introduce
the requirement for a similar idea (prime consultant) into the Ontario Building Code.
MMAH rejected the idea. The Ministry is unlikely to impose on owners the requirement
for a Structural Engineer of Record.
Engineer B
As for how I would want things to work, my first and foremost concern is that the public is being
protected and that safe buildings are being constructed. That being said, it has not yet been
proven to me that this is not already happening and that there is a problem with the system that
we currently work under. To the best of my knowledge there isnt an epidemic of structural
failures in buildings that have been constructed in Ontario. So I have to ask the question: What
problem is it that we are trying to solve with this proposal for an SER?
I have participated in several meetings at PEOs offices to discuss this issue of SER with other
engineers and contractors. I have heard issues tabled by contractors about missing information
on drawings and how drawings were more complete in the good old days. After those
meetings, I took the time to review numerous sets of drawings produced back in the good old
days, (30, 40, 50 years ago), by a variety of consultants. Based on my findings, for the most
part, those drawings would be considered schematic sketches by todays standards, and in my
opinion, the information required on todays drawings has increased exponentially.
Unfortunately, the timeframes given to produce drawings today has decreased, and compensation
for engineering consultants has fallen way behind other industries. I fail to see how enacting
SER legislation is going to improve this situation.
Incidentally, has anyone taken the time to find out if the introduction of the SER in B.C., AB,
and Manitoba resulted in any significant improvement in structural engineering services, drawing
quality, building quality, reduced construction extras, etc.? Before we change the current
delivery model for structural engineering services in Ontario, it would seem to me that we would
want to review the effectiveness of similar programs that are already in use in other provinces.
Before this completely goes off the rails like Bill 124, we have to clearly define the problem that
we are trying to solve. To date, other than anecdotal annoyances, I have not heard anything from
anyone to suggest that there is something systemically wrong with the way that structural
engineering services for buildings are being delivered in Ontario. If it is these anecdotal
annoyances that we are trying to resolve, SER legislation will not be effective.
Engineer C
I have been reading the various responses to the concept of SER and I agree that the overriding
principle must be protection of the public. My opinion is:
1.
Generally, an orderly and systematic design and co-ordination of the design of the
various components is the best way to achieve that goal.
2. The quality of the project structural drawings that we see when we act as a connection
design engineer has decreased in the past 30 years.
3. Design Build is a popular concept and owners in the private market are able to purchase
more components as "pre-eng". Further, owners are able to purchase and piece together
structural design services for various components and the various engineers are not paid
to coordinate their services and there is no requirement for them to do so. For example,
we designed the steel superstructure of a 5 storey office building for a steel fabricator as "
design build". The owner hired another engineer to design the foundations and the
masonry. There was limited co-ordination between the engineers and the owner looked
after the engineering of the other components. It worked out but that was only due to the
skill and experience of the owner/developer who was completely "hands-on". I dont feel
comfortable with the process and if I was a building official, I would feel even less
comfortable.
4. For the most part, I agree that most engineers want to do the best job they can. However,
I have met engineers who put on blinders and will look after the design of their
component of the design but dont care or have much less care about the other
components that they may be connected to or have an effect on. Unfortunately, the time
when one could count on everyone doing their best in all cases has passed. Therefore,
more regulations are required.
5. I believe there is value in being more transparent in the design process and assumptions
that have been used in the design. One of the functions of an SER would be to force that
transparency and for the various designers to be clear on what they have assumed and
what loads are transmitted to other components.
6. I hesitate to say it but the quality of the training and education of our Canadian graduates
has decreased over the past 20 years. Even more, there are more and more internationally
trained engineers who have a license. From my personal experience in the hiring and
reviewing the work of internationally trained engineers, their training, abilities and
knowledge of Canadian codes and practices is not uniform and in many cases, is substandard. Yet, they have the same license as an engineer with a designated consulting
engineer with 30 years experience to design and co-ordinate all the structural systems of a
one to a 50 storey building. In my view, it is only a matter of time until we have a major
collapse or collapses because of inferior design.
7. The SER idea is a concept that has been used in several other provinces and the
United States. As a proactive step, I feel it is time for the PEO to be the leader in our
province in suggesting that there be a seasoned engineer to co-ordinate the design of the
structural systems and the concept of a SER with additional qualifications should be part
of the strategy. I agree that if we do not start moving toward this concept, the public will
eventually demand or force this upon the Profession in terms of their choosing.
Engineer D
I can see some very nervous professional liability insurers on the horizon. Where everybody
working on a project is employed by the same real entity the professional liability insurance
issue is likely a non-issue; where one engineer has to be responsible for a whole raft of engineers
employed elsewhere there may be serious reluctance to one entity adopting the risk in the 'all
equal but some are more equal than others' situation that the Engineer of Record is placed.
I'll defer to those with much more experience of the realities of the Engineer of Record than me,
but is it worth asking the Structural sub-committee to investigate that - or have someone in-house
do it, and report back to us how the issue can be addressed. And it'll have to be something that is
workable in the real world.
If the structural sub-committee is already looking at this issue (or something similar) can they
share their thoughts with PSC before we/they go off on a wild goose chase trying to satisfy
council?
Engineer E
In view of mechanical and electrical engineering in building industry, contractors shall provide
as built document. This document will be generally reviewed by the engineer. If PEO consider to
put the responsibility onto the engineer to "guarantee" the accuracy of the submitted as built, it
will have significant impact on the liability and responsibility of the engineer. Should the
engineer be responsible for this work, he should not stamp the record document.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B - (a)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
Yes there is a problem. Structural building designers (offices) do not design the entire structure.
The design of the structure is, more than often, delegated by one designer to other designer
under SEPARATE contracts with the Owner/Constructor/Subcontractor. In many cases the
Owner/Constructor retains various designers directly for the design of specific building
components. The result is the increased likelihood of designers not working together closely to
ensure that all design criteria work TOGETHER and perform as intended, by say, the primary
designer of the structural framing. Reviews of secondary structural elements that may or should
be sealed are not being reviewed by the primary designer. Complexes, such as pre-engineered
structures with greater lateral displacement are being placed adjacent to more rigid
conventional structures (under a new development) and neither designer are investigating the
effects of lateral deflections upon each other. While the designs themselves are satisfactory, it is
the fragmentation of various designs which increases the likelihood of design gaps.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
No, in general, my experience is that the combination of reviews done by independent
inspectors, by the designated reviewing engineers, and by delegated engineers appear to
ensure that structures are constructed in general compliance with the contract documents.
However, it is has been noted on two occasions, where the prime structural engineering
consultant has delegated the general commitment review process to each sealing engineer(of
sub elements) and, in turn, has relied on individual reviews to complete the general review
process without stepping on site. If this process increases in frequency then I would believe a
problem will arise. In my opinion, I also do not think it is prudent for any party more than armslength of the prime designer to perform general commitments to review as the level of
responsibility becomes clouded and diluted, moreover, there are nuisances to which only the
primedesigner can pick up.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
Yes
X No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
X No
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
X Yes
No
What information should be included in those specifications? First, designers do not often
follow the prescribed standards for their own design which they impose on other designers or
buildings. For structural steel CAN/CSA S16.1 is the applicable standard. Similarly CAN/CSA has
most of the standards for structural designs antenna supporting structures, masonry, wood,
steel design etc. Ironically, it is my understanding that we cannot find a member guilty for not
following a prescribed standard as we cannot impose these standards on members?????
X 5
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer of record.
Who.. is the designated professional engineer responsible to ensure that the entire structural
system for the project is designed and co-ordinated among multiple sealing structural designers
and who is responsible to for verification of construction in accordance with the sealed design
documents. Each sealing professional is responsible for their own design but the designated
professional engineer is responsible to ensure that the entire design is complete and co-
ordinated. The designated professional may also be, for example, the foundation designer or
the steel framing designer.
Would like to point out a problem with item 2); Assume the designated individual has ultimate
responsibility say over joist design but has delegated the design to the manufacturer to provide
the best economical design for the Owner. Further assume that upon review of the delegated
design the designated individual has a differing opinion and changes the design to the detriment
of the manufacturer. The manufacturer maintains they have met the contract specifications but
the designated individual is asking for more. Now we have a both a professional and
contractual issue.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline must be
responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in that discipline
preparing designs for elements of the building?
X Yes
No
If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this coordination?
This is tough from me to answer for all disciplines. Structurally, it would be the engineer sealing
the superstructure drawings concrete or steel framing or wood truss framing etc. The
foundation engineer could perform this as well. However, any competent member could
provide the co-ordination required. Too often, in my experience, we receive responses from
sealing engineers of the main framing drawings indicating that connections for glazing be
sealed by the glazing contractor/designer but they will not review them. Or, require sealed
drawings for wall systems but will not review them. I believe when the public retains a
professional engineer to contrive a building that that same professional will ensure that all
aspects are contrived in an professional manner. The public should not be left with the
responsibility of filling gaps in the contractual process to ensure this happens a designated
professional engineer must ensure this.
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B (b)
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(c)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
There are several problems. One of them is that design of projects is often fragmented between
several engineers in several design offices. This sometimes leads to gaps in coordination of all
of the aspects of the design. In those cases, it is not clear who is responsible to ensure that all
of the parts of the design work together or that the same design criteria is being used. Another
is that there are more internationally trained engineers being licensed in Ontario whose skills
and experience are not suitable to design medium to large size projects in Ontario. However,
under the present system, there is no limit on the types of projects that they can design and
certify.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
There is always a potential problem with allowing one party to do the design for a project and
another to do the general review. Designs are never perfect and the designer is the most likely
party to be able to recognize a design error during the general review process.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
Yes
No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
No
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
Yes
No
1
2
3
4
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer of record.
I like the CASE definition combined with the APEGBC definition which includes general
conformance and coordination of the secondary and specialty structural elements with the
primary system.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline must be
responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in that discipline
preparing designs for elements of the building?
Yes
No
If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this coordination?
It should be the engineer who designs the primary structural framing system and that
engineer should be a senior engineer with at least 10 years of consulting experience.
Based on our meeting it seems that almost everyone agreed that defining a structural engineer
of record is a best practice for the sake of public safety, clarity for building officials and
accountability of the designers. Some people are afraid of creating more regulation and more
coordination work without any guarantee of fees for that extra work. Some people feel that
since there have not been many complaints or collapses that the status quo is fine. I believe
that as a profession, we have to define best practices and we have to be proactive in updating
the best practices to match a changing design environment. If redefining the best practice of
requiring that a structural engineer be assigned avoids one collapse that saves one life, it is
worthwhile.
However, there seems to be many obstacles to implementing a mandatory structural engineer
of record. At this point, it may be that the Guideline can only define the position and
recommend that owners assign a structural engineer of record if the engineering is done by
several engineers working in two or more offices. If the work is done in a single office, the
supervising engineer will be the engineer of record by default.
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(d)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
Yes.
The gap between the design and build.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
Yes. See Garbutt case.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
X
Yes
No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
Yes
NoX
1
2
3
X 4
5
The name Engineer of Record is not important. It could be Chief Engineer as we had at
Dominion Bridge.
The important thing, as the CEO of BC stated is tol have clear lines of responsibility.
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer of record.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline must be
responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in that discipline
preparing designs for elements of the building?
Co-ordinating the flow of information?
He is not a co-ordinator. He is the Chief Engineer.
Yes
X No
If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this coordination?
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(e)
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(f)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
I believe that incomplete construction documents, lack of communication and incompetence
of any party involved in project can lead to the threat of public safety.
Current trend is that each new project has to be done faster, cheaper. This practice leads to
drawing incompleteness and bad design.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
In my experience, following are the most frequent problems:
1) In case where the person/company who reviews the structure has not been involved in the
design process of that same structure, there is a big risk for mistake due to missing
information on final drawings. This is due to many addendums, e-mails, sketches and
phone conversations which occurred after the drawings were issued for construction and
have never been properly checked or reviewed.
2) The person who reviews the completed structure is often young, inexperienced engineer or
engineering in training.
Example:
- We had cases where review engineer forced erection crew to weld the bottom chord of the
joist to the column, which is extremely dangerous once joists are loaded and no movement is
allowed.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
NO
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
No
n/a for me, but my opinion: if a single engineer takes the responsibility for other peoples
work, he/she has to show that responsibility by checking and sealing drawings prepared by
others. How else is that responsibility manifested and proved?
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
Yes
What information should be included in those specifications?
-Latest issue of structural drawings, addendums, sketches
-Design forces
-Design criteria
Choose one of the following:
A structural engineer of record is defined as a professional engineer who
1) Designs the entire structural system for a building including the structural subsystems;
2) Takes responsibility for the design of the entire structural system for a building
including the design of structural subsystems designed by others;
3) Is responsible for verifying that the building is constructed as designed;
4) Is responsible for the design of the entire structural system and for verifying that the
building is constructed as designed; or
5) Is something else.
4
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer of record.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline must be
responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in that discipline
preparing designs for elements of the building?
Yes
If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this coordination?
Designer of the primary structural system
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(g)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
Usually no. However, in complex systems there is a need for vigilance by the project manager
to ensure all elements are coordinated from the perspectives of design integration and
construction detailing and installation.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
As above.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
Yes
XX No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
XX No
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
XX
Yes No
element is safe for its intended use. I wouldnt tell him how to make something and take on
that liability.
Choose one of the following:
A structural engineer of record is defined as a professional engineer who
1) Designs the entire structural system for a building including the structural subsystems;
2) Takes responsibility for the design of the entire structural system for a building
including the design of structural subsystems designed by others;
3) Is responsible for verifying that the building is constructed as designed;
4) Is responsible for the design of the entire structural system and for verifying that the
building is constructed as designed; or
5) Is something else.
1
2
XX 3
4
5
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer of record.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline must be
responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in that discipline
preparing designs for elements of the building?
XX
Yes No
If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this coordination?
As stated, for each discipline, I would nominate an individual. The prime consultant would be
responsible for overall coordination and signoff of the entire project.
It may be difficult to come up with a singular definition for this proposed title.
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(h)
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for
building structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or
well-being? If so, please describe that problem.
No
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings
during construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or wellbeing? If so, please describe that problem.
No
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the
primary structural system) should take responsibility for all designs in that
discipline including designs prepared by professional engineers working for
subcontractors?
Yes
No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline,
he/she would indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and
sealing all drawings including those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing
to do so?
Yes
No
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components
provided by the subcontractors?
Yes
No
1
2
3
4
If you choose option [5] please provide your definition of the structural engineer
of record.
I chose 5 because none of the others seem to make sense. There must be
something better and #5 is it. Quite what #5 needs to be is beyond me.
Do you agree that for each building project a single engineer in each discipline
must be responsible for coordinating the flow of information to all engineers in
that discipline preparing designs for elements of the building?
Yes
No
C-476-3.2
Appendix C
Minutes
PSC - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING IN BUILDINGS GUIDELINE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETING
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
PEO Offices
Members:
Kevin Chessman, P. Eng.
David Garbuio, P. Eng.
Don Ireland, P. Eng.
Suja John, P. Eng.
Neil Kennedy, P. Eng.
John Mark, P. Eng.
Ranka Radonjic-Vuksanovic, P. Eng.
David Tipler, P. Eng.
Staff:
Jos Vera, P. Eng.
Regrets:
Michael Moffatt, P. Eng.
Robert Morrison, P. Eng.
Edward Poon, P. Eng.
Opening of Meeting
1.
2.
3.
J. Vera reported that a Policy Analysis paper on the Engineer of Record will be
completed in March of this year.
J. Vera asked the members for their input on how to incorporate a coordinating
professional into the guideline. The following points were made during this
discussion:
A Coordinating Engineer will solve gaps, but will not solve differences of
opinion.
If work is done by multiple offices, our guideline could state that there has to
be a Coordinating Engineer.
Coordinating
Engineer
places
Coordinator
Dispute Resolution
Consequently, someone, an
The Terms of Reference were reviewed and the following comments were made:
2.
It was noted that the Terms of References do not cover incomplete drawings.
Having a Coordinating Engineer solves the gaps issue, but does not solve all
issues.
The question was posed; can architects do this role? Members pointed out
that the architects cannot do engineering work.
The Coordinating Engineer only verifies that the design work was done to the
right criteria.
Other members expressed that the designated consulting engineer may not
be qualified enough.
Where would the Coordinating Engineers stamp go? Perhaps at the building
permit level.
The Coordinating Engineer could coordinate the work in the same company
or be from another company.
3.
If one company does all the structural work, they have their checks and
balances.
Where major base building components are done by two or more different
engineering firms, there is value in having a Coordinating Engineer.
Status of Guideline
6.
J. Vera reviewed with the members the current status of the guideline. It was
decided that the guideline will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Next Steps
7.
Adjournment
8.
4.
C-476-3.2
Appendix D
C-476-3.2
Appendix E
Project Description:
Address of Project:
Municipality:
WHEREAS the Ontario Building Code requires that the project described above be reviewed during construction or demolition by architects,
professional engineers or both that are licensed to practice in Ontario, and
WHEREAS the Building Code Act prohibits the construction or demolition of a building if a permit has not been issued to authorize it, and
WHEREAS architects are prohibited by law from undertaking general reviews if a permit has not been issued,
NOW THEREFORE the Owner, who intends to construct or demolish or have the building constructed or demolished, hereby confirms that:
1. The undersigned architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) have been retained to provide general reviews of the construction or demolition of the
building to determine whether the work is in general conformity with the plans and other documents that form the basis for the issuance of a permit, in
accordance with the performance standards of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) and/or Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO);
2. All general review reports by the architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) will be forwarded promptly to the Chief Building Official;
3. Should any retained architect or professional engineer cease to provide general reviews for any reason during construction or demolition, the Chief
Building Official will be notified in writing immediately, and another architect or professional engineer will be appointed so that general review
continues without interruption;
4. Construction or demolition will only be undertaken if architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) are retained to undertake general review, and a
permit authorizing the proposed construction or demolition has been issued; and
5. The architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) listed below will be notified of construction or demolition start date and that no work will commence
before the start date given in the notification.
The undersigned hereby certifies that he/she has read and agrees to the above
Owners Name:
Date:
Owners Address:
Telephone:
Signature of Owner:
Print Name:
Fax:
Telephone:
Address:
Fax:
Telephone:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
Telephone:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
Telephone:
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
Telephone:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
MECHANICAL
Signature:
MECHANICAL
Signature:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
MECHANICAL
Signature:
Address:
05/2011
C-476-3.3
At its September 2011 meeting, Council approved support for the Take Back
Manufacturing initiative (TBM) of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME). Included
in the motion was the appointment of a PEO Councillor to attend SME meetings, promotions
and trade shows as the PEO representative advocating the regulatory mandate of PEO in the
context of SME's initiative. No Councillor was appointed at that time.
Also, in accordance with PEOs insurance policy requirements, Council is required to approve
volunteer members.
2. Rationale/Recommendation
That Council appoint a member of Council as the PEO representative as stated above.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-3.4
With the repeal of the industrial exception, industry may benefit from guidelines and
professional standards specifically geared to industry. Knowledge of the Professional
Engineers Act within industry is likely fairly limited. To achieve full benefit of the repeal,
professional engineering with industry needs to have the appropriate systems of
professional accountability.
2. Recommendation and Rationale
1. The Repeal of the Industrial Exception Task Force would be asked to identify issues
that industry may benefit from if there were additional standards and/or guidelines
tailored for industry.
2. The Professional Standards Committee would develop a mandate for its Industrial
sub-committee.
3. Volunteer Management would recruit expert practitioners to serve on the subcommittee.
4. The sub-committee would identify the need for additional standards and/or
guidelines to assist industry.
5. Standards and/or Guidelines would be developed using PSCs protocols and
approved by Council.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Section 4
IN-CAMERA SESSION
C-476-5
CONSENT AGENDA
Purpose: To approve the items contained in the consent agenda
Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)
That the consent agenda be approved.
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS, Secretariat Co-ordinator
Routine agenda items that may be approved without debate are included in a consent agenda
and may be moved in a single motion. However, the minutes of the meeting will reflect each
item as if it was dealt with separately. Including routine items on a consent agenda expedites
the meeting.
Items included on the consent agenda may be removed and dealt with separately if they
contain issues or matters that require review.
Please review the minutes ahead of time for errors or omissions and advise Allison Elliot (416840-1114 or aelliot@peo.on.ca) if there are any required revisions prior to the meeting so that
the minutes, when presented, may be considered within the consent agenda.
The following items are contained in the consent agenda:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.1
2. Current Policy
It is PEO convention that Council ratify minutes of Executive Committee meetings.
3. Appendices
Appendix A Minutes of 225thExecutive Committee Meeting October 2011
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.1
Appendix A
Minutes
The 225th Meeting of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO was held at PEO offices,
40 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
Present:
Regrets:
Staff:
K. Allen, P.Eng.
A. Elliot
J. Zuccon, P.Eng. [minutes 11-50 to 11-52]
CALL TO ORDER
Notice having been given and a quorum being present, the Chair called
the meeting to order.
Councillor Euler advised that President Adams had requested he chair
the meeting.
11-41
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
11-42
IN CAMERA SESSION
11-43
APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL
MEMBERS TO THE 2012 CENTRAL
ELECTIONS AND SEARCH COMMITTEE
The Chair stated that the Committee was being asked to appoint two
additional members to the 2012 Central Election and Search Committee.
He reminded the Committee that, at its September 2011 meeting,
Council approved the CESC Selection Protocol for appointing two the
additional members as required under Section 12(1)(d) of Regulation
941.
The protocol requires the Executive Committee to prioritize five
potential members to serve on the Central Election and Search
Committee (CESC) from the list of OPEA awardees from the last five
years. A list of such recipients was provided to the Executive Committee.
Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Past President Freeman:
That the CEO/Registrar be directed to obtain the consent of two of five
members selected in accordance with the CESC Selection Protocol to
serve as the two additional members of the 2012 Central Election and
Search Committee, in the following order of priority:
1. Stephen C. Armstrong
2. Harvey Pellegrini
3. Robert H. Rehder
4. Keith W. Hipel
5. Robert Bryant
CARRIED
11-44
APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL ELECTIONS
AGENT
The Chair stated that the Executive Committee was being asked, as
directed by Council, to appoint an outside agency to receive, control,
process and report on all returned ballots in connection with the Council
elections. He explained that Council had delegated this authority Council
delegated this authority with the proviso that the cost not exceed 10% of
last year.
The Committee reviewed the quotation for the 2012 elections versus the
actual costs for the 2011 elections, exclusive of variable expenses - taxes,
return postage, incidentals.
11-46
REGIONAL OFFICE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
11-47
COMMITTEE OF EXPERIENCED
PRACTITIONERS
The Chair stated that the Committee was being asked to appoint a
committee of experienced practitioners to develop more concise
definitions , a process for reviewing complaints prior to forwarding them
on to the Complaints Committee, and a process for simple peer review
of such complaints, as directed by Council at its September 2011
meeting.
A discussion took place on the best way in which to populate the
Committee. It was concluded that the positions be posted on PEOs
volunteer website, with the qualification for participation on this new
Committee is members with 20 years or more experience in the
consulting business. Members are to be given one month to submit
their resumes.
It was also concluded that President Adams and President-elect Dixon
review the applications and make the final selection.
11-48
MEMBER SUBMISSION BY-LAW
CONFIRMATION REPORT OF
CONSULTATION WITH REGIONAL
CONGRESSES
11-49
REGIONAL COUNCILLORS COMMITTEE
SUBMISSION RE: ELECTING THE
PRESIDENT
The Chair stated that the Chair of the Regional Councillors Committee
(RCC) was requesting the Executive Committee to support an RCC
motion regarding election of president by members.
Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Vice President Chong:
That the following courses of action with respect to the election of the
president, be presented to Council, at its November 2011 meeting, for
consideration:
a) That members be invited to submit comments in support of, or
against, electing the president from among Councillors;
b) That an unedited composite document of the comments
received be prepared for publication in Engineering
Dimensions, on PEOs website, and presented wherever
possible; and
c) That a binding member referendum be held on this issue;
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Allen advised that Council had
approved, and the government was working on preparing, several
proposed regulation amendments related to other governance matters
and direction was being sought on what affect a referendum might have
on those regulations. It was agreed that it be noted in the briefing note
to the November 2011 Council meeting that only the referendum
questions be presented to members and, should the referendum pass,
the other proposed associated governance regulations intents passed at
the February 2011 Council meeting would not be affected.
A question arose regarding the relevancy of inviting members to submit
comments and the publication of unedited comments received to the
question of holding a referendum. While it was acknowledged that
conflicting views on the issue should be presented, it was concluded it
would be more appropriate to present a balanced argument in
Engineering Dimensions, with a one-page article to be devoted to each
side, rather than publish a composite document. That notwithstanding,
members are to be provided with a forum on which they may exchange
comments.
The Executive Committee agreed, and Council is to be advised, on the
following:
1. The Regional Councillors Committee would be advised that the
Executive Committee supports the concept of holding a binding
member referendum on whether the president should be
elected from among Councillors;
2. One member from each side of the argument is to be invited to
prepare a one-page article for publication in Engineering
Dimensions so that a balance argument is presented to
members;
11-51
REGULATION PROVISIONS UPDATE
11-52
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
MOBILITY
Mr. Zuccon advised that the President, George Comrie, P.Eng., and he
had visited the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General to
discuss reinstating the additional requirements PEO wished to
implement for licensure. Mr. Zimmer agreed to review the
requirements when government resumes but in the meantime,
reminded PEO it is required to adhere to the provisions of the Ontario
Labour Mobility Act.
11-53
DEVELOPMENT OF GRADUATED
LICENSING SYSTEM AND WAGE
SCHEDULE
11-54
REACTIVATION OF FEE SCHEDULE
COMMITTEE
11-56
MINUTES 224th Executive Committee
Meeting August 2011
11-57
EMERGING DISCIPLINES UPDATE
________________________________________
D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair
______________________________________
K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar
C-476-5.2
2. Current Policy
Section 25(1) of By-Law No. 1 states that meetings of PEO are to be governed by Wainberg's
Society Meetings. Rule 27.5 of Wainberg's states that "There is no legal requirement to have
minutes verified, but it is considered good practice. The motion does not by itself ratify or
adopt the business transacted; it merely verifies the minutes as being correct [a correct
record of the discussions held and decisions made at the meeting]."
3. Appendices
Appendix A Minutes of the 474th Meeting of Council November 2011
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.2
Appendix A
Minutes
The 474th MEETING of the COUNCIL of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO (PEO) was held at PEO Offices, 40
Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 11, 2011.
Present:
Regrets:
W. Kershaw, P.Eng.
R.J. Hilton, P.Eng.
Guests
Staff:
CALL TO ORDER
Notice having been given and a quorum being present, the Chair
called the meeting to order.
11035
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
That:
a) the agenda, as presented to the meeting at C-474-1.1,
Appendix A be approved, with the following amendments:
i) the moving of item 6.1 (minutes of the 224th
Executive Committee meeting) in camera;
ii) addition of a Discipline Committee update for item
7.4 (Council Liaison Reports);
iii) the removal of item 2.4 (Re-establishment of the
Fee Schedule Committee);
iv) the addition of Engineers Without Borders Proposal
under 7.2 (Council items);
v) the addition of Senior Staff at Meeting under 7.2
(Council Items); and
b) the Chair be authorized to suspend the regular order of
business.
CARRIED
RULING SUSTAINED
Councillor Carlos voted against
11036
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
11037
FINANCIAL MATTERS
Against
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Freeman
B. Kossta
Mary Long-Irwin
S. Reid
C. Roney
R. Shreewastav
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
DEFEATED
Recorded vote:
Abstain
R. Huang
C. Moore
T. Sharma
The Chair stated that Council was being asked to approve a practice
standard developed in response to recognize needs to prescribe best
practices for a professional engineering activity in the area of
environmental site assessments.
Council reviewed the proposed practice standard.
The Chair stated that Council was being asked to approve a guideline
for professional engineers reviewing work prepared by another
professional engineer.
Council reviewed the proposed guideline.
Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Councillor Gupta:
That Council:
1.
Approve the Guideline for Professional Engineers
Reviewing Work Prepared by another Professional
Engineer as set out in C-474-2.3, Appendix A; and
2.
Direct the CEO/Registrar to publish the guideline and
notify members and the public through usual PEO
communications.
CARRIED
11040
REVISIONS TO COMMITTEES AND TASK
FORCES POLICY
At the request of the Chair, Mr. Allen stated that Council was being
asked to consider member submissions presented at the 2011
Annual General meeting. He then reviewed the recommendations
of the Executive Committee and changes to the original submissions.
Moved by Vice President Quinn, seconded by Vice President Chong:
THAT, with respect to the 2011 AGM Member Submissions, Council
approve the following recommendations of the Executive
Committee:
1) That Council shall research and perform due diligence on any
governance issues requiring regulations and by-law
amendments and consider member approval;
2) THAT all motions that are brought to Council by the
membership are to follow the following processes:
a) Council shall confirm its receipt of the motions and
advise movers of when their motion will be heard;
10042
REGIONAL COUNCILLORS COMMITTEE
SUBMISSION ELECTION OF THE
PRESIDENT BY COUNCIL
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
to members;
Past President Freeman and Councillor Roney be requested to
prepare the in favour of change side of the issue and
President-elect Dixon and Councillor Fraser to prepare the
contrary side;
the assigned Councillors achieve consensus on the referendum
question for Councils consideration at its December 14, 2011
meeting;
should the assigned Councillors be unable to achieve consensus
regarding the question, each side would present its proposed
question and Council will select one of the questions without
modification;
Members be provided with a forum on which to post their
comments and which would be available to all members; and
the list of proposed associated regulations, already approved
by Council, would continue to be moved through the
government should the referendum results be favourable.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
11044
MINUTES 224th Executive Committee
Meeting, August 2011
11045
BUILDING BRANDING
That Council:
1. Approve building signage as follows:
the use of the PEO logo on the east and south
elevations as the high-rise signage option for 40
Sheppard Avenue West;
street address signage at the main building
entrance;
a monument sign displaying the logo at grade;
at a cost not to exceed $240,000 for work
associated with the sign;
at a cost not to exceed $20,000 of removing and
replacing landscaping in the planter; and
2. Authorize the 40 Sheppard Task Force to finalize the
signage details and installation.
CARRIED
11046
EDUCATION COMMITTEE SUBMISSION
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS TO
COMMITTEES
11047
EAST CENTRAL REGION SUBMISSION
INFORMING MEMBERS OF CHANGES IN
THE ACT, REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS
Vice President Chong stated that the East Central Region Congress
(ECRC) was seeking Council support of its open issue #58 regarding
informing PEO members of reasons for and against any changes
proposed to be made to the Professional Engineers Act, its
regulations and PEO By-laws.
Councillor Ballantyne advised that the proposed ECRC submission
implied that the Regional Councillors Committee (RCC) supported
the ECRC motion. He explained that the RCC had not considered the
motion due to the absence of ECRC representatives at the RCC
meeting.
Moved by Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Roney:
That East Central Region Congress Open Issue #58 regarding
informing PEO members of reasons for and against any changes
proposed to be made to the Professional Engineers Act, its
regulations and PEO By-laws, be referred back to the Regional
Councillors Committee
CARRIED
11048
CONSENT AGENDA
11049
ENGINEERS CANADA UPDATE
11052
COUNCILLOR ITEMS
11053
INFORMATION ITEMS
________________________________________
D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair
_______________________________________
K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar
C-476-5.3
2. Current Policy
Section 25(1) of By-Law No. 1 states that meetings of PEO are to be governed by Wainberg's
Society Meetings. Rule 27.5 of Wainberg's states that "There is no legal requirement to have
minutes verified, but it is considered good practice. The motion does not by itself ratify or
adopt the business transacted; it merely verifies the minutes as being correct [a correct
record of the discussions held and decisions made at the meeting]."
3. Appendices
Appendix A Minutes of the 475th Meeting of Council December 2011
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.3
Appendix A
Minutes
The 475th MEETING of the COUNCIL of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO (PEO) was held via
teleconference on Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Present:
Regrets:
D. Carlos, P.Eng.
T. Chong, P.Eng. Vice President
M. Hogan, P.Eng.
R. Huang, LL.B.
M. Long-Irwin
S. Reid, C.Tech.
Staff:
CALL TO ORDER
11054
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
11055
2012 RESERVE POLICY
For
P. Ballantyne
D. Dixon
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
B. Kossta
J. Lee
C. Moore
C. Roney
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Against
D. Adams
I. Bhatia
S. Gupta
R. Jones
L. King
P. Quinn
T. Sharma
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Council then voted on the main motion:
That:
c) the 2011 Reserve Policy, with reserves set at $3.5
million, be extended to December 31, 2012; and
d) the Policy be monitored throughout the year, with
adjustments being made, if required.
CARRIED
For
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
R. Fraser
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
L. King
B. Kossta
J. Lee
C. Moore
P. Quinn
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
11056
2012 OPERATING BUDGET
Against
D. Adams
S. Gupta
R. Jones
Against
D. Adams
Abstain
S. Gupta
R. Jones
M. Wesa
Against
D. Adams
R. Fraser
S. Gupta
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
B. Kossta
C. Moore
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
11057
2012 CAPITAL BUDGET
R. Jones
L. King
P. Quinn
For
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
R. Fraser
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
L. King
B. Kossta
C. Moore
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Against
D. Adams
S. Gupta
R. Jones
P. Quinn
Against
Abstain
D. Adams
R. Fraser
S. Gupta
R. Jones
P. Quinn
11060
RANDOM PUBLICITY
_______________________________________
D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair
______________________________________
K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar
C-476-5.4
4. Appendices
Appendix A Report of the Consulting Engineer Designation Committee
Appendix B Legal Implications
476
th
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.4
Appendix A
1. The Committee has reviewed the following applications for DESIGNATION and recommends to
Council that these 7 applicants be exempted from examinations pursuant to Section 56(2) of O.Reg.941
and that they be considered for DESIGNATION AS CONSULTING ENGINEER, having met the
requirements pursuant to Section 56(1) of O.Reg.941:
#
1.1
P.Eng.
Brisson, Andre Louis
Company Name
Jade Engineers Inc.
1.2
Chipps, Steven
1.3
1.6
Froese, Amanda
Jayne
Graham, Levi
Kenneth
Schuknecht, Brent
Edward
Tape, William Donald
1.7
1.4
1.5
Address
19 Baldwin St.
Tillsonburg, ON N4G 2K3
3215 North Service Road
Burlington, ON L7N 3G2
202-1315 Bishop St. N.
Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2
453 Christina St. N.
Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3
20 Mural Street
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1K3
24 Shepherd St. E.
Windsor, ON N8X 2J8
901-85 Richmond St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 2C9
Licence #
100024703
90556481
100044355
100009184
90295445
100026210
90439860
Page 2 of 5
2. The Committee has reviewed the following applications for REDESIGNATION and recommends to
Council that these 25 applicants be granted REDESIGNATION AS CONSULTING ENGINEER, having met
the requirements pursuant to Section 57(2) of O.Reg.941:
#
2.1
2.2
P.Eng.
Coulter, John
Emerson
Craig, Dale Conrad
2.3
Dedhar, Saleem
2.4
Dietrich, John
Benedict
Haddad, Yunis Elra
2.5
Company Name
JE Coulter Associates
Ltd.
J.L. Richards &
Associates Limited
S2S Environmental Inc.
Peto MacCallum Ltd.
Haddad Morgan and
Associates Ltd.
Hamann Engineering
Structural Consultants
Ltd.
LH Consultants Ltd.
2.6
Hamann, Stephen
David
2.7
Hudec, Ludovit
2.8
CH2M Hill
2.9
Huggins, Norman
Douglas
Iannuzziello, Angela
2.10
Muskoka Engineering
2.11
Johnston, James
Genivar Inc.
2.12
Lorenzen, James
Daniel
Marcu, Mihail Ion
Lorenzen Engineering
Corporation
Self-Employed
Dillon Consulting
Limited
G.W. Mcdowell
Engineering Ltd.
Infratec Engineering
Group Ltd.
Peto MacCallum Ltd.
2.18
McCluskey, George
Canney
McDowell, George
Wilson
Mitchell, Bruce
MacLeod
Nathoo, Alnor
Abdulaziz
Palumbo, Peter
2.19
Sorensen, Peter
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
Genivar Inc.
Vista Engineering
Corporation
EMS-Tech Inc.
Address
211-1210 Sheppard Ave. E.
Toronto, ON M2K 1E3
864 Lady Ellen Place
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5M2
260-1099 Kingston Rd.
Pickering,ON L1V 1B5
16 Franklin Street South
Kitchener, ON N2C 1R4
24 Shepherd St. E.
Windsor, ON N8X 2J8
10-151 Bentley Street
Markham, ON L3R 3X9
Licence #
9503012
20739504
9701012
11057502
11588019
17730011
18023010
20796017
21189113
21386016
22330013
27397504
29038403
30034508
30301501
90227315
33608019
35273010
43678010
Page 3 of 5
2.20
Sutton, Peter
Laughlin Alan
Tassone, Nicola
Terrapex Environmental
Ltd.
Building Sciences Inc.
Sendex Environmental
Corp.
The Sernas Group
2.24
Trudell, Marc
Bernard
Webster, Reginald
David
Wood, Victor
2.25
Zourntos, Peter S.
2.21
2.22
2.23
3.
90444639
90262601
47048509
49280019
51000016
90214156
#
3.1
P.Eng.
Joseph, Jr. Winston
Company Name
Joseph, Winston Jr.
3.2
Markell, Cristopher
Alexander
Milliken, Bruce
Edward
3.3
49 Coldwater Aod
Toronto, ON M3B 1Y8
1-221 Rayette Road
Concord, ON L4K2G1
417 Exeter Road
London, ON N6E 2Z3
41-110 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N 8Y7
24-1080 Tapscott Rd.
Scarborough, ON M1X 1E7
2-741 Rowntree Dairy Rd.
Woodbridge, ON L4L 5T9
Address
902-1210 York Mills Road
North York, ON M3A 1Y3
600 Glengarry Boulevard
Cornwall, ON K6H 6P8
224 North Murray St.
Trenton, ON K8V 6R8
Licence #
100076442
100026118
31849110
The CEDC recommends to the Council of the Association that the 3 applications
for designation be DECLINED because they do not currently comply with the
Regulation 941, made under the Professional Engineers Act, Section 60(b) with
respect to being PRIMARILY ENGAGED.
#
4.1
4.2
Company Name
Infratec Engineering Group
Ltd.
MIG Engineering (2011) Ltd.
Address
2 David Gohn Circle
Markham, ON L6E 1A7
453 Christina Street N.
Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3
Designated Consulting
Engineer(s)
Bruce Mitchell, P.Eng.
Mark Kennedy, P.Eng.
Page 4 of 5
C-476- 5.4
Appendix B
Legal Implications/Authority
1. Pursuant to Section 56(2),Council has the authority to exempt an applicant from any of
the examinations required by section 56(1) to be taken by an applicant for a Consulting
Engineer Designation if Council is satisfied that the applicant has appropriate
qualifications.
Pursuant to Section 56(1) Council shall designate as a Consulting Engineer
every applicant for the Designation who meet the requirements set out in Section
56(1)(a-d). As a result there does not appear to be any discretion for Council to
refuse applicants who meet the requirements.
2. Pursuant to Section 57(2) Council shall redesignate as a consulting engineer every
applicant who meets the requirements of section 57(2) (a-c). As a result there does not
appear to be any discretion for Council to refuse applicants who meet the
requirements.
Page 5 of 5
C-476-5.5
Work Plan
HR Plan
Tof R
Awards Committee
C-476-5.5
Appendix A(i)
Mandate
[as approved
by Council]:
Terms of
Reference
[Key duties]:
1. Assess all eligible nominations for the associations Order of Honour, Ontario
Professional Engineers Awards, Sterling Award and External Awards programs and
make recommendations for potential awardees to PEO Council for approval.
2. Monitor the awards program strategies.
3. Review the documentation, criteria and processes for each OPEA award category
and make appropriate recommendations for improvement.
4. Encourage the nomination and celebration of deserving colleagues for recognition
through Professional Engineers Awards Programs (OOH, OPEA and Sterling) and
External Honours.
5. Monitor and review past award recipients and other award programs to identify
persons deserving further recognition through upgrades or other honours.
6. Review and consider/recommend to Council new awards where appropriate.
Tasks,
Outcomes
and Success
Measures:
Task/Activities:
Outcomes and
Success Measures
Due date:
List of recommended
nominees for the OOH,
Sterling and OPEA
Award submitted to
Council (and in the
case of OPEA, OSPE
board) for approval
Ongoing
Ongoing
friendly in accessing
and completing the
nomination processes
for the various awards
Greater efficiency and
easier participation for
AWC and PEO
members by leveraging
technology
Committee/
Task Force
Members
Council
Liaison:
Committee
Advisor:
Intercommittee
collaboration:
Stakeholders:
Categories
Core Competencies
Skills/Abilities
Expertise/Knowledge
Committee
Membership
Broad Engagement
Career Stage
Disciplines & Sectors
Gender / Diversity
Geographic
Representation
Target / Ideal
(To meet the needs of
the Committee)
Key objectives and
core competencies are
listed in Appendix A
12 members
At least 1 Councillor, 2
OSPE appointees,1
OOH Companion and
at least 3 from the
OOH list and from the
OPEA
At least 1 from every
career stage ( i.e.
early, mid and late)
At a minimum: 1 from
government, 1from
academia, 6 from a
wide variety of
disciplines and sectors
Currently in Place
See Appendix A
11 members ( 2 OSPE
& 1 Councillor)
4 OPEA and 6 OOH ( 2
Companions)
11 senior in career
Majority in Class F
Academia, aerospace,
automotive, federal /
provincial , municipal,
private (energy/power,
management
consulting, legal,
Biochemical, biotech,
nanotech chemical,
civil, forensic,
electrical, mechanical,
metallurgical,
environmental
3 female and 8 male
members
Geographic
representation across
all regions
8 CEAB and 3 IEB
CEAB / International
Engineering Graduates
Licensed vs
Non-licensed
Volunteer
Development Plans
List potential
All P.Engs.
All P.Engs.
Advancement to Vice
January 2012
Gap
[ST = Short-term Goal
LT = Long-term Goal]
No gaps
1 member
LT 1 mid or 1 early
(< 10 yrs)
No gap
No gap
Possibly 1 EIT
Succession Planning
Time on Committee
At least 2 members
Terms of Office:
Chair/Vice Chair
Committee members
January 2012
committee/task force
Election to Council
Appointment to
external agencies
with 0 to 5 years on
committee
At least 2 members
with 5 to 10 years
APPENDIX A
A. Key objectives and core competencies (per the Work Plan)
List top 35 Committee Work Plan
Outcomes:
January 2012
List specific
attributes for
each core
competency
Resources
Needed
Target Date
for
completion
Facilitated strategic
session
June 2012
strategic
session
PEO IT staff
January
2012 AWC
meeting;
June 2012
strategic
session
C. Comments
January 2012
C-476-5.5
Appendix B(i)
5. Appendices
Appendix A Proposed Revisions to the OSPE - PEO Joint Relations Committee Terms of
Reference
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
OSPE - PEO
Joint Relations Committee
C-476-5.5
Appendix B(ii)
Terms of Reference
1) Purpose
The purpose of the Committee is to:
a) Build relationships between the leaders of the two organizations to strengthen
regulation, service and advocacy for the profession within their respective mandates;
b) Facilitate the exchange of information between the two organizations;
c) Identify issues and facilitate cooperation between the two organizations in areas of
mutual interest / concern; and
d) Provide a forum for the discussion and informal resolution of potential areas of
opportunity or conflict between the two organizations.
2) Guiding Principles
(i) We will support each other in the interest of advancing the engineering profession.
(ii) We will work to find synergies and not compete with one another.
3) Composition
3.1 The Committee will consist of the following members:
a) The President /Chair plus two (2) other Directors three (3) senior volunteers of the
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;
b) The Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;
c) The President and two (2) other Councillors three (3) senior volunteers of
Professional Engineers Ontario; and
d) The Chief Executive Officer of Professional Engineers Ontario.
The above representatives will be appointed to the Committee by their respective organizations
from time to time according to their respective organizations policies for such appointments. It
is intended that appointees will be chosen on the basis of their knowledge of the issues facing the
profession and of their respective organizations positions with respect to same, as well their
commitment to maintaining an effective working relationship between the two organizations.
Each organization will reimburse the expenses of its appointees to the Committee
in accordance with its established policies and procedures.
6.2
The two organizations will share in the common meeting and operating expenses
of the Committee such as meals / refreshments, duplication and transmission of
documents, etc. This may be accomplished by alternating the hosting of the
meeting between the two organizations premises.
C-476-5.6
476
th
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-5.6
Appendix A
Changes to Sections 2 (Other Committees Reporting to Council)
and 4 (Task Forces) of the 2012 Committees and Task Forces Roster
476 th Council Meeting
Committee and Task Force Appointments:
New members
Greg Allen, P.Eng.
Philip John Smith
Service
2012
2012
Committee
Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC)
Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force (RIETF)
The proposed Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC) volunteer was identified and assessed
by the Committee Chair and Committee Advisor. He has completed a formal application
process and is being recommended to serve as noted.
The proposed Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force (RIETF) volunteer has completed
a formal application process and, in consultation with the Committee Advisor, was evaluated
by the Director, People Development, and is being recommended to serve as noted.
Service
Committee
2011
Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) Chair (reelected)
2012
Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) Vice Chair
2012
2012
2007
2011
The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV), Complaints
Committee (COC) and Registration Committee (REC) are being recommended by the
respective committees.
Service
Committee
2012
Fees Mediation Committee (FMC) - Committee Advisor
2012
Service
Committee
2008
Professional Standards Committee (PSC) Guideline
for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation
2008
Professional Standards Committee (PSC) Guideline
for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation
2008
Professional Standards Committee (PSC) Guideline
for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation
2009
Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)
2006
2006
1997
2009
2009
2010
Service
2010-2012
Committee
Education Committee (EDU)
2010-2012
2005-2012
2006-2011
2005-2011
2010-2011
External Appointments:
Members
Robert Dunn, P.Eng.
Service
Committee
2012
Canadian Engineering Qualification Board (CEQB) (reappointed)
C-476-5.7
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Process
Followed
N/A
Council
Identified
Review
N/A
Actual
Motion
Review
N/A
5. Appendices
Appendix A Current Policy
Page 2 of 3
C-476-5.7
Appendix A
SMITH AND WOLFE AWARDS
Current Policy
PEO Council policy provides for professional engineering licensure via PEOs Technical
Examinations Program. Each year, the Licensing and Finance Department, in concert with the
Academic Requirements Committee, makes recommendations to Council in respect of the V. G.
Smith and S. E. Wolfe Awards. These awards were established in honour of Professors Smith
and Wolfe, who were licensed professional engineers and former members of the associations
Board of Examiners (now called the Academic Requirements Committee).
The V. G. Smith Award is given to an individual who attained PEO membership during the year,
following the completion of the associations technical examination program, in which he or
she gained the highest mark in any three examination papers, excluding the Complementary
Studies and Professional Practice Examinations.
In the case of The S. E. Wolfe Award , it is also given to an individual who attained PEO
membership during the year. He or she, having completed at least one technical examination,
has submitted an engineering report judged to be the best of all the reports received during
the year with a minimum grade of 80 per cent.
The sum of $1,000 is awarded to each of the winners and they are invited to attend the Annual
General Meeting Luncheon at which their awards are presented.
Page 3 of 3
C-476-6.1
The following individuals have been re-appointed to Council by the Lieutenant Governor-inCouncil until the date set opposite their respective names:
Ishwar Bhatia, P.Eng. to December 18, 2014
Chris Roney, P.Eng. to December 6, 2013
Rakesh Shreewastav, P.Eng. to December 6, 2013
Martha Stauch to December 18, 2014
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.1
Appendix A
C-476-6.2
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.3
Appendices
Appendix A The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts On
Regulation In Canada - Summary Report
Appendix B Impacts of Globalization
Appendix C Globalization Workshop Follow Up
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.3
Appendix A
ENGINEERS CANADA
SUMMARY REPORT
Ottawa, Ontario
May 5, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice workshop was held on May 5, 2011 in Ottawa,
Ontario. The objective of the workshop was to examine and identify the potential impacts of globalization
on regulating the profession in Canada with respect to international changes in engineering education,
practice and regulation. This report briefly summarizes each presentation and provides an overview of the
table group and plenary discussions and recommendations of participants.
Theme 1: Understanding the Context of the Globalization of Engineering
Three presentations were given to build understanding of the issues, challenges and benefits of the
globalization of engineering. Dick Fletcher, Chair, International Committee, Engineers Canada, gave a
presentation on how Engineers Canada assists in the development of mobility agreements for engineers
and its level of involvement in the international engineering community. Then, John Power, Director
General, Engineers Ireland, provided an overview of Engineers Ireland, the European Union, regulation of
engineers in Europe, education requirements and engineers mobility in Europe. And last, Jerry Carter,
Executive Director, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) described the
NCEES, current issues around licensure and its mobility in the U.S. and key global challenges being faced
by NCEES.
Theme 2: Federal Government Initiatives on International Mobility
Under the federal government theme, Michelle Cooper, Director, Services Trade Policy Division, Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Canada gave a presentation on Canadas trade agenda and the key
principles of its trade negotiations approach. Then, Gerrie Doyle, Canadian Architectural Licensing
Authorities (CALA) International Relations Committee Chair outlined some of the international agreements
in which CALA is involved (e.g., the Canada/US Inter-recognition Agreement ).
Following the presentation, participants worked in table groups to answer three discussion questions. First,
participants identified several trade issues that should be a high priority for resolution such as the
procurement process and quality-based selection (QBS); support and promotion of international trade
agreements and related discussions; the issue of reciprocity; and how to maintain high quality standards in
licensing without creating trade barriers.
Secondly, participants suggested some ways to involve the engineering profession in trade negotiations
and the establishment of trade positions such as developing networks to maintain relationships and
promote knowledge sharing; supporting Engineers Canada as the national voice for the profession;
involving youth in promoting the engineering profession; and creating a long-term strategy for involving the
profession in trade negotiations on a regular basis.
Finally, participants noted that regulated professions could work together by creating a common voice and
initiating regular dialogue among professions, students and policy bodies, and by developing a
collaboration framework to guide ongoing discussions.
Theme 3: Education
John Hepburn, Vice-President, Research and International, University of British Columbia briefly
summarized international engagement activities at UBC and noted some of the ways that globalization of
the engineering profession is enhanced through education. Following this presentation, David Strong,
Professor and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Chair in Design
Engineering, Queens University identified current variants in engineering education, and provided
Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada
examples of non-traditional programs, offered some global perspectives and challenged participants to
consider some challenging questions with respect to the future of engineering education.
Table discussions on the topic of engineering education were held following the presentations. Participants
identified a range of concerns about alternative learning approaches for engineering students such as the
need to ensure that high quality learning outcomes are met through alternative learning approaches.
Specifically, many were concerned about maintaining learning approaches that foster and test students
abilities in areas such as technical fundamentals, problem-solving skills, ethics and social responsibility,
team work, professional skills and creativity.
In terms of ways that the Canadian engineering profession and learning institutions can most effectively
work with their international counterparts, participants encouraged a holistic approach to connecting with
international learning institutions. In addition, they supported the use of approaches such as exchange
programs, satellite campuses, internships, distance education and multi-national degrees.
When asked about the degree to which we should work to harmonize our education standards with other
countries, several groups urged caution. They did not want Canada to blindly support harmonization to the
detriment of its high educational and professional standards. In addition, the cost and complexity of
pursuing harmonization could be high. Despite their reservations about harmonization, all participants
acknowledged the need to learn about and from the experiences and systems of other countries with the
aim of continuous improvement in Canada.
Theme 4: Practice Issues
John Boyd provided a brief overview of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers and the
engineering industry. He also outlined some hurdles that are faced in international engineering, discussed
the concept of reciprocity and highlighted some implications for Canadian practice. Andrew Steeves, EXP,
focused his presentation on globalization and the procurement of engineering services. Specifically, he
argued for the widespread use of a quality-based procurement approach.
Following these presentations, participants identified some key issues regarding the international practice
of engineering such as the need to address differences in ethics between Canada and other countries,
how to attract and retain professionals and how to promote the benefits of quality-based selection. In
response to the second discussion question, participants suggested undertaking actions or activities to
help resolve the identified key issues regarding international practice. They emphasized the need for the
Canadian engineering profession to speak with one voice to promote the value of engineering and to help
small- and medium-sized businesses access good and complex work projects. Collaboration among
companies to promote QBS could result in greater understanding and uptake of QBS by clients. They also
emphasized the need to participate in open dialogue within the profession and with clients and to raise the
overall profile of the engineering profession to government and decision-makers.
Workshop Wrap-Up
Paul Amyotte closed the workshop on behalf of Dick Fletcher. Key lessons from the workshop include the
need to speak with a single, national voice. Engineers Canada could lead this effort but other key members
of the engineering community need to be engaged. Overall, there is great value in collaborating with other
professions (e.g., architects) and strong, effective relationships enhanced by ongoing dialogue are
essential to addressing current and future issues.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABET
ACE
APEC
AUCC
CALA
CEAB
CELF
CETA
DFAIT
EIT
EMF
EU
European Union
FEANI
FIDIC
FTAs
MRAs
NAFTA
NCEES
NSERC
OAA
QBS
Quality-based selection
RAIC
TILMA
UIA
iv
INTRODUCTION
The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice workshop was held on May 5, 2011 in Ottawa, Ontario.
The objective of the workshop was to examine and identify the potential impacts of globalization on regulating the
profession in Canada with respect to international changes in engineering education, practice and regulation. The
workshop was approved and budgeted by the Board of Engineers Canada.
The session was attended by 61 participants; a list of participants is included in Appendix A. Participants took
part in a series of table and plenary discussions addressing four themes: a) understanding the context of the
globalization of engineering; b) federal government initiatives to address international mobility; c) education; and
d) practice issues. Each theme was framed by a panel of expert presenters who provided an overview of the
theme and identified some of the challenges being faced by the engineering profession. Following each panel of
presentations, table group discussions were held. They were guided by a number of discussion questions aimed
at identifying the globalization issues being faced by engineers including how the regulation of engineering may
be affected by globalization, ways to improve the international presence of Canadian engineers and ways that the
Canadian engineering profession can change or improve to more effectively work at an international level.
All workshop feedback will be provided to Engineer Canadas International Committee for consideration. After
completing their analysis of the materials, the Committee will report its findings or recommendations to the Board
of Engineers Canada.
This report briefly summarizes each presentation and provides an overview of the table group and plenary
discussions and recommendations of participants.
WELCOME
Zaki Ghavitian, President, Engineers Canada welcomed participants to the workshop and encouraged delegates
to participate fully in the days discussions.
He noted that education requirements for engineers are changing rapidly and there is an increasing need to work
internationally. Further, relevant work experience and continued professional development, including on an
international stage, are becoming highly valued proficiencies for licensed engineers. These principles have been
strongly embraced by many countries and will soon become a global necessity. Mr. Ghavitian also pointed out
some of the pressures on licensing of the Canadian engineering practice such as internal and inter-governmental
trade. He emphasized the need to continually analyze available data in order to maintain a clear picture of
engineering in Canada and what is needed to regulate it in the future.
He highlighted the value of the Agreement on Internal Trade which creates opportunities for innovation and
creativity, and has improved mobility for engineers within Canada.
International agreements are also valuable to the Canadian engineering profession for improving the international
mobility of Canadian engineers, raising awareness of engineering education and practices around the world and
as a forum for promoting Canadian policies and practices worldwide. The Canadian engineering profession has
strong principles which have been built into international agreements without compromise. Mr. Fletcher also
emphasized the benefits of building and maintaining relationships with trusted partners in an international context.
In the general, the aim is to create workable and valid agreements that hold value for all parties.
Mr. Fletcher reviewed the key elements of existing Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) including educational
level agreements such as the Washington Accord and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET) Agreement, and professional level agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and bilateral agreements with a range of other countries including Ireland, Hong Kong and France. He
also mentioned the need to regularly monitor and continually manage these agreements to ensure they are
current, relevant and beneficial.
In closing, Mr. Fletcher noted that Engineers Canada is interested in improving the Canadian engineering
profession as well as the engineering profession overall. Therefore the organization believes it has a
responsibility to participate on the international stage to help build and maintain international agreements in order
to sustain an understanding of what is happening globally and to build quality standards that countries strive to be
part of.
engineers stature and credibility (including information about education, etc.). Participation will be voluntary.
He also noted the importance of MRAs in enhancing mobility.
In conclusion, Mr. Power noted that engineers make a significant difference to quality of life; there is a role for
Engineers Canada in enhancing this. And, whether they are in Canada or Ireland, engineers are operating in a
global environment with a variety of different regulatory systems. Mr. Power felt that changes in European
legislation have reduced some barriers that are faced by engineers. Nonetheless, he emphasized the importance
of effective relationships in making globalization work. And, like Canada, Ireland continues to focus on ensuring
high quality standards are used as the basis for these relationships.
Following the presentations, participants were provided with an opportunity to pose questions to the presenters.
A participant asked whether Engineers Canada or Engineers Ireland have found other ways to establish
international standards regarding education levels (i.e., beyond international agreements)? Mr. Fletcher
emphasized the importance of being able to recognize the educational credentials of engineers from countries
where educational systems are quite different from the Canadian system. The approach that Engineers Canada
has taken is to help improve or develop standards in other countries, where needed (e.g., through international
agreements). Mr. Power noted that Ireland supports the continued improvement of standards over time, through
their own standards, participation in international agreements (e.g., Washington Accord, European Federation of
National Engineering Associations (FEANI)) and relationship building.
Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada
What types of recommendations does the NCEES make to state boards when conducting credential evaluations?
Mr. Carter responded that NCEES reviews an individuals credentials and provides an advisory statement to a
state board for its consideration. The statement includes a detailed description of the individuals credentials, a
list of noted deficiencies and an opinion as to whether an individual is qualified for entry into the profession.
A participant noted that masters degrees in Canada are different than those in the U.S. (e.g., in Canada,
masters students focus on research rather than course work); thus, further thought should be given as to
whether it makes sense to raise education requirements for Canadian professional engineer status as was done
by the NCEES in the U.S.
The challenges of evaluating the credentials and experience of foreign trained engineers were also noted. Mr.
Carter noted that the NCEES is grappling with this issue as well.
Following her presentation, a participant suggested that procurement is a bigger concern on the international
stage for engineers than accreditation; Ms. Cooper encouraged and welcomed further dialogue on this topic.
Ms. Cooper was also asked to describe how DFAIT addresses negotiation challenges that arise from differences
in regulatory and other frameworks in different countries (e.g., voluntary code of ethics versus legislated
responsibilities). In response, she noted that DFAIT learns from each negotiation and applies lessons learned to
new negotiations. She also noted the importance of continued dialogue with organizations such as Engineers
Canada to build and maintain a solid understanding of the barriers and challenges being faced on-the-ground.
The Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) represents 11 Canadian architectural licensing
authorities. Ms. Doyle presented eight of CALAs International Relations Committee (IRC) portfolios. These
agreements were presented in order of priority to CALA:
-
Canada / US Inter-recognition Agreement This agreement addresses the issue of credential recognition
and is currently based on education, experience and examination. CALA is pursuing a relationship that is
based more on the mutual recognition and trust of U.S. and Canadian licenses in order to facilitate better
mobility of architects (e.g., similar to the reciprocity agreement that exists between jurisdictions in Canada
whereby architects licensed in one province are accepted at face value across the country). In addition, to
further improve mobility in Canada, CALA is working on a national continuing education program so that
architects are required to meet continuing education licensing requirements in one province only.
Tri-National Agreement This agreement is in its second year of negotiations between Canada, Mexico and
the U.S.
Architects Council of Europe (ACE) Accord - This accord was signed in 2005. Barriers and challenges
regarding differences in regulatory restrictions on architects make it difficult to develop MRAs.
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation - CALA will assume the secretariat in 2014.
Canberra Accord This accord facilitates the portability of educational credentials between the signatory
countries.
Union Internationale des Architects (UIA) The UIA is an international union of architects. CALA has
presented the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (UIAs member on behalf of Canada) with a draft
memorandum of understanding to guide further interaction on this file.
Quebec / France Bi-lateral Agreement This is a new agreement between the government of France and the
Quebec provincial government.
Ms. Doyle noted that Canadas changing demographics are a key motive for creating and maintaining
international agreements that support the international mobility of professions such as architects and engineers.
In addition, CALA has noted that a significant portion of young people educated as architects are not entering the
profession upon completion of their schooling. This may be due in part to unwillingness by clients to pay
professional fees. Ms. Doyle suggested that it is important to have reasonable professional fees with national
guidelines (for both architects and engineers).
In her presentation, Ms. Doyle mentioned that provincial/territorial guidance would be useful to help advance the
ACE Accord. In response to a question, she clarified that a draft agreement has been developed and distributed
to provinces and territories and that assistance in moving it forward to agreement is desired.
Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada
The procurement and quality-based selection (QBS) process were raised by five tables as a priority issue
to address. Two tables encouraged the use of the QBS process as long as professional standards are
maintained.
Support and promote international trade agreements and related discussions in order to remove trade
and cultural barriers. One table noted that regulation of the Canadian engineering profession is an
integral part of Canadian society, economy and government services and thus requires the creation and
maintenance of strong connections between negotiators and provincial and federal regulatory bodies.
Another table encouraged consideration of priorities regarding the next countries/markets to approach for
agreements.
Two tables raised the issue of temporary work versus immigration. One table noted that trade issues and
immigration are two separate challenges and the solutions may be different for each issue. Another table
questioned whether Canada is stealing from developing countries by integrating international talent into
the Canadian economy. The need to clarify temporary licensing provisions (including addressing cultural
differences) was also noted.
Two tables raised the issue of reciprocity (e.g., if Canada has access to other markets, do we want to
allow other countries access to our markets?)
Understand and address differences in domestic regulation rules (e.g., in bureaucratic procedures; cost
of licensure).
One table was concerned that the outsourcing of engineering services may have the undesirable effect of
limiting work opportunities for both Canadian and international engineers working locally (i.e., on-theground in another country).
Ensure that high quality standards are maintained and met; (e.g., do not lower Canadian licensing
standards to lowest common denominator international standard). Be innovative to ensure that
standards are met without causing trade barriers. One table suggested the use of a flexible framework
emphasizing high standards of education, experience and specific knowledge of the market.
Ensure robust accountability for international engineers offering services in other countries
Internally, focus on creating value for export (this includes services and goods)
Continue to build bilateral relationships between professions while larger framework discussions are
taking place, especially in complex jurisdictions
Address the concern that provincial agreements with groups outside Canada can create a back door
access to practice in Canada.
2. What is the best way to involve the engineering profession so that it may serve as an effective partner
in trade negotiations and the establishment of trade positions?
The best way to involve the engineering profession in trade negotiations and the establishment of trade
positions would be to:
-
Support Engineers Canadas important role in providing a national voice to the profession. Engineers
Canada should have a constant presence in discussions as it can provide a permanent and consistent
voice for the profession (e.g., knowledge is easily lost as employees change jobs). One table encouraged
the appointment of an Engineers Canada representative to assist with ongoing education and
communication related to the profession.
Create a long-term strategy regarding the involvement of the profession in trade negotiations and the
establishment of trade positions. At the national level, there is a need for an active coordinating role to
bring regulators together.
Learn from the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).
Provide specific communications to address the risk of back door entry into the Canadian market.
3. How should regulated professions work together to influence international trade negotiations?
Regulated professions should work together to influence international trade negotiations by:
-
Initiating regular dialogue among professions, and involving students and policy bodies in the discussion
(e.g., Engineering Intern Training programs (EITs)).
Learning from other regulated professions (e.g., the issues they face; similarities or differences with
engineering).
Providing the engineering professions input, with leadership from Engineers Canada, into key elements
of agreements (e.g., regulators, profession, business).
Developing a framework to guide collaboration among professions while respecting the differences
between them.
Establishing a national standard agreement that we will not lower our standards. We must agree to
respect three principles: public safety; health; individual competency.
Using the Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum (CELF) to address trade issues.
Providing public support for negotiations and communicating the value of negotiations to the public.
One group was uncertain whether regulated professions should work together. But, they felt that, if they are
to work together, professions must connect at a senior management level, with links to regulators, educators,
practitioners and other relevant stakeholders (e.g., consulting engineers, public sector, industry).
THEME 3: EDUCATION
INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Presenter: John Hepburn, PhD
Vice-President, Research and International, University of British Columbia
John Hepburn launched his presentation with a brief overview of the University of British Columbia (UBC). He
noted the importance of international engagement to universities to increase research opportunities, attract
students from other countries, and provide a rich learning environment for all students. UBC has an international
strategic plan to guide the development of these opportunities. It focuses on three key regions: India, China and
Europe. UBCs approach to international education is embedded in its overall approach by encouraging student
mobility, providing opportunities for international service learning (e.g., Engineers Without Borders; opportunities
to create solutions for engineering challenges in other countries), and building entrepreneurial skills (e.g., by
including graduate students in industry research projects).
Dr. Hepburn suggested a number of ways to expand international engagement including 2+2 programs,
international internships, and conducting graduate research abroad. He also mentioned the distributed medical
education program in BC as a potential model for future international education (students from a number of
campuses share common classes (via videoconferencing) and participate in local, hands-on learning to
supplement the distance learning portion of their program).
One of the themes at UBC is creating the global engineer. This theme reflects the understanding that engineering
is a global profession and students benefit from learning to work in different countries. Dr. Hepburn suggested
that universities need to use their curriculum (particularly in engineering and business) to help students learn
about working in a global economy by providing students with opportunities such as learning through projectbased courses or incorporating international service learning into courses. Overall, education should be provided
to train students in non-Canadian issues as well as Canadian issues.
Following his presentation, Dr. Hepburn was asked for his opinion on the creation of satellite university campuses
in other countries. Dr. Hepburn noted that UBC did not incorporate a satellite campus as part of its delivery model
in order to maintain the integrity of its program; instead, the university is focusing on the creation of partnerships
with established universities.
A participant noted that Canadian students do not take part in international learning opportunities as often as
other countries send students or research teams to Canada. Dr. Hepburn suggested that language issues may
be a primary reason for this (not many Canadian students speak a language other than English or French). He
also noted that jurisdictional issues may play a part as it is difficult to promote a Canadian approach when there
is little coordination among Canadian universities who are seeking international learning opportunities. Currently
Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada
each institution sends its own delegation to other countries to promote their institution and research projects
without any collaborative efforts among universities to send a Canadian delegation.
All participants were concerned about ensuring that high quality learning outcomes are met through
alternative learning approaches, and recognized both domestically and internationally. Specifically, many
were concerned about maintaining learning approaches that foster and test students abilities in the
areas of technical fundamentals, problem-solving skills, ethics and social responsibility, communications,
team work and project work skills, the development of professional skills, and creativity. They were also
concerned about maintaining control over the quality of educational programs and learning approaches.
It was noted that some people (teachers, students, professionals) may not be open to considering
unfamiliar methods of learning. Reasons for this were suggested, including:
- There may be some fear, especially among educators, about losing teaching jobs and/or losing
control of the curriculum (e.g., if move to online learning).
- There may also be a desire to protect or defend current and past teaching methods or approaches.
- There may be no incentives for educators to develop or implement alternative learning approaches.
In the current post-secondary system, professors are typically rewarded more for their ability to
attract research funding than for their ability to teach innovatively. This may be a detriment to the
creation of alternative learning approaches.
It takes dedicated time and commitment to implement change, and there is a time lag between
implementation and results. Ongoing assessment of innovative approaches could help continue to
facilitate change by providing regular feedback in real time (rather than waiting until completion of a
project to gather results).
In addition, participants were concerned about ensuring that alternative learning approaches are
appropriately monitored to meet degree requirements.
Finally, they noted that innovation can be expensive and wondered how it would be funded in the current
environment of fiscal restraint.
2. In what ways should our Canadian engineering profession and learning institutions most effectively
work with their international counterparts (e.g., exchange programs, satellite campuses, multinational
degrees, etc.)?
-
The practice of engineering should be more fully integrated into educational programs.
The engineering community should be open to change and aware of trends in the global environment
including knowledge of best practices worldwide.
It is important to implement an international, cross cultural element to the education process to provide
new graduates with a head start in international practice.
10
Take a holistic approach to connecting with international learning institutions such that a broad
understanding and knowledge of the university, its program, its values and standards exists to create
trust and mitigate risks.
The engineering profession should support leaders who propose innovative programs.
Engineers Canada should review the CEAB requirements and process to best incorporate
international/globalization elements. A table suggested that protecting the CEAB accreditation process
and standards has to be top priority while another encouraged the expansion of current CEAB initiatives
for cooperation with and examination of engineering education systems in other countries.
Be open to change and aware of trends and changes in the international context.
Marketing is required (e.g., outreach to offshore, highly reputable universities); Association of Universities
and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) should be involved since it is part of their mandate to market
engineering programs abroad.
New approaches should be subject to continuous monitoring to gauge success, gaps and best practices.
3. To what degree should we work to harmonize our education standards with other countries?
-
One table group stated that global reality means harmonization is inevitable. However, several
(approximately 7) table groups urged caution around harmonizing education standards. They did not
want Canada to blindly support harmonization to the detriment of its high educational and professional
standards. In addition, the cost and complexity of pursuing harmonization could be high (especially
considering Canadas jurisdictional issues).
One group suggested that harmonization is unachievable and should not be pursued; instead, this group
suggested creating a range of standardized exams that would accommodate different course structures
to illustrate their competency in a particular area of engineering. Another table agreed and suggested a
two-pronged approach: a) develop high quality standards within the Canadian context; and b) help
international partners understand how their graduates can best prepare for entry into the profession in
Canada and help Canadian students and graduates understand the qualifications they will need to go
abroad. It was also suggested that harmonization could happen on a systems-wide basis or at a broad
standards level, rather than a specific curriculum, or delivery method, basis (e.g., outcomes-based
assessment).
11
A participant pointed out that, currently, there is no international body that develops or monitors
educational standards for the engineering profession; this may make it difficult to focus international
discussion on the harmonization of educational standards.
Despite their reservations about harmonization, all participants acknowledged the need to learn about
and from the experiences and systems of other countries with the aim of continuous improvement in
Canada. One participant succinctly noted that a little bit of humility will help us learn and continue to
maintain and improve our high standards.
John Boyd provided a brief overview of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) 1, and the
engineering industry. He also outlined some hurdles that are faced in international engineering, discussed the
concept of reciprocity and highlighted some implications for Canadian practice.
Mr. Boyd made four main points in his presentation:
1. As Canadian engineers, our primary responsibility is to protect Canadas quality of infrastructure and through
it, our quality of life. He suggested that to do this well, on the international stage, Canadian engineering
companies need to build sustainable practices that emphasize the creation of local partnerships and the
development of local offices. This helps address the need for trained engineers who can work locally (local
engineers are trained and accredited locally); the issue of mobility (by transferring technology, cultural
learning, etc. through the local office); and the need for local and innovative approaches.
2. Intellectual colonialism is dead. Mr. Boyd noted that knowledge moves quickly and a sustainable practice
allows companies to nimbly take advantage of opportunities.
3. Knowledge about educational comparison is useful for local Canadian firms hiring immigrants. By working
locally, with local staff, understanding of the local rules of business is gained. Reciprocity is a key ingredient
in successful working relationships and agreements. And, governments should challenge the profession to
find solutions to engineering problems.
4. A partnership is always a learning experience and bad surprises should always result in the immediate
suspension of reciprocity.
Following his presentation, Mr. Boyd responded to questions from participants. A participant noted that high
quality education is a Canadian strength and the work that has been done regarding accreditation and credential
recognition is important. Mr. Boyd agreed that the work of Engineers Canada in this regard has been very useful,
especially for small- and medium-sized companies. For larger companies, who are able to create the sustainable
business model outlined by Mr. Boyd, local partnerships provide the means by which the company can decipher
and understand the meaning of locally obtained education and credentials.
Mr. Boyd was also asked to expand on his statement that government is not challenging the engineering
profession. He noted that government is most often fiscally driven when seeking a consultant. He suggested that
seeking the cheapest way to do a job does not spark or allow innovation. Governments need to challenge
engineers to find solutions to the big challenges they are facing (e.g., climate change).
1 FIDIC is an association representing 84 countries. It advocates on behalf of industry at the international level (e.g., to the World Bank).
12
In his presentation, Mr. Steeves pointed out that although engineering principles are universal and there are good
engineers everywhere, engineering principles cannot be applied in the same manner everywhere. Thus, treating
all engineers as equal can lead to the treatment of consulting engineering services as a commodity (sought on
the basis of price only). Price-based selection does not value the experience of an engineer or his/her firm and
can penalize the firms with the best understanding of a clients needs or those that accurately anticipate
complications in the project and/or provide an innovative solution for a project.
Mr. Steeves suggested that quality-based procurement would be a better approach. In this process, the client and
firm first agree on the desired outcome, develop an understanding of the cost-benefit relationship (i.e., the cost of
risk), understand each others roles and responsibilities and select the right team for the job based on
qualifications and then based on this foundation, determine the needed resources for the project. Price is
important but is not the sole determinant for selection. Mr. Steeves encouraged participants to carefully consider
Quality Based Selection (QBS) as a best practice for engineers.
Following his presentation, Mr. Steeves fielded questions from participants.
A participant pointed out that the quality of a project is an important criterion when potential clients are reviewing
consultant proposals (i.e., evaluation criteria based 80% on quality and 20% on price). However, Mr. Steeves
pointed out that, if several applicants meet the quality criteria, the selection process would be based solely on
price from that point on.
Some participants agreed with Mr. Steeves that engineers need to recognize the value of their own work. Many
also agreed that placing a strong focus on quality over price can lead to a better product and long-term savings
through consideration of life-cycle costs. It is important to include life-cycle costs into the cost of a project.
When asked about international procurement, Mr. Steeves indicated that when price is the first consideration, it
can result in the hiring of international professionals who may not have appropriate experience at the local level
(e.g., no knowledge of engineering in a northern climate).
One participant commended the presenter for continuing to promote QBS and asked about the progress that has
been made in government. Mr. Steeves responded that progress has been made -- the province of Quebec is
going to adopt QBS and a federal government department is going to run a pilot. He also noted that FIDIC is also
developing a QBS document.
Another participant shared the following advice for the engineering profession:
- Showcase best practices - Pick like minded partners to undertake big and bold QBS projects that
display Canadian engineering expertise and then showcase the completed projects.
- Engage all relevant and interested parties as much as possible in the preferred process.
- Engage the right people (e.g., Treasury Board, Public Works and DFAIT) and clearly put your views
forward.
13
1. What are the industrys key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?
Participants identified the following key issues regarding the international practice of engineering (in no
particular order of importance):
-
How do we best understand, respect and meet local engineering standards and codes of practice, and
business practices?
How can we address, at all levels, differences in ethics between practice in Canada and practices in
other countries? And, to what extent do we bring Canadas best knowledge or practices to international
work? Should we apply Canadian standards locally? Is this ethical or professional?
How do we make money on international contracts? Attracting and retaining people in our profession /
engineering service industry requires improved financial returns. Further, how do we avoid the race to
the bottom; that is, competition among Canadian firms just for sake of competing and turning
engineering services into a commodity?
How can we promote the benefits of QBS to our counterparts and colleagues? How can we effectively
integrate the QBS concept into our business so that we can be innovative, provide clients with the best
value for cost on a life cycle basis, manage risk, and easily identify the value-added portion of projects?
How can we embed QBS and life cycle analysis into trade negotiations and the education system?
How can we, as a profession, be more open to innovation? How can we increase appreciation that there
is a wide variance in correct engineering solutions?
How can we further address jurisdictional issues in Canada that are limiting our international mobility?
How can we promote the importance of partnering with credible local experts?
How can we develop competencies in Canadian engineers so they can easily undertake international
work?
How can we more effectively and accurately assess an international engineers experience?
How can we control the chain of custody and responsibility for engineering work done in other countries
for Canadian projects being undertaken by locally trained (i.e., not Canadian) engineers?
How can we continue to develop relationships (with government, local partners, other countries
engineering associations, etc.)? Relationships are vital to moving forward into a successful future; they
lead to trust and a deeper understanding of local needs and realities.
Value ourselves and our services. Speak with one voice to promote the value of engineering (e.g.,
through Engineers Canada) and to help small- and medium-sized businesses access good and complex
work projects. Collaboration among companies to promote QBS could result in greater understanding
and uptake of QBS by clients.
Continue to promote, enhance and participate in open dialogue within the engineering profession (e.g., at
venues such as this workshop) and with clients, especially about key issues such as QBS.
Provide leadership by taking a proactive approach. For example, identify issues (e.g., climate change)
where engineering solutions can make a difference, then share our views and suggested solutions to
promote our profession and increase our competitiveness.
14
Raise the profile of the engineering profession to government and decision-makers. Provide clear (and
forceful) advice to decision-makers (including those who negotiate international agreements) regarding
the desired future direction of the engineering profession.
Provide guidance to educators regarding the desired future direction of the engineering profession so
that appropriate tools, programs and courses can be developed at educational institutions to support the
vision.
Proactively educate clients, politicians, supply officers, professional engineers and educators on the full
cost analysis / life cycle approach.
Develop rules or standards for the profession regarding the need for a life cycle approach to project
proposals (e.g., additional spending at the design phase can create savings in operations and
maintenance). Ensure that these standards benefit everyone and promote the principles of QBS.
The Engineers Canada Government Relations Committee could play a larger role.
Take action even before the exact solution has been found
WORKSHOP WRAP-UP
Paul Amyotte closed the workshop on behalf of Dick Fletcher. He thanked the presenters for their stimulating and
thoughtful presentations. He also thanked participants for the high level of interest and effort throughout the
workshop. Finally, he thanked those responsible for organizing the workshop including Lynn Tremblay, Chantal
Guay, Ken McMartin and their teams.
Mr. Amyotte shared Mr. Fletchers key lessons from the day:
- There is a need to speak with a single, national voice. Engineers Canada could lead this effort but other
key members of the engineering community need to be engaged.
- Key barriers to international work need to be targeted and removed while maintaining Canadian
standards. Canada should not be complacent about its own excellence; there are many good engineers
throughout the world.
- There is great value to be found in collaborating with other professions (e.g., architects).
- The importance of strong, effective relationships cannot be overstated. An ongoing dialogue and
continued open communication will help address current and future issues.
All workshop feedback will be provided to Engineer Canadas International Committee for consideration. After
completing their analysis of the materials, the Committee will report its findings or recommendations to the Board
of Engineers Canada. Decisions of the Board will be communicated to all participants
At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to submit a feedback form with their evaluation of the days
proceedings. This feedback is summarized in Appendix C.
All workshop presentations and this summary report will be available online to all participants as soon as
possible.
15
Table 2
Table 3
David Adams
Kim Allen
Paul Ballantyne
Pat Quinn
Kathyrn Sutherland
Robert Wilson
Frank Denton
Kris Dove
Lloyd Henderson
Mark Tokarik
Charles Boisvert
Chris Zinck
Gerrie Doyle
John Hepburn
David Strong
Gordon Griffith
Chantal Guay
Jerry Carter
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Ishwar Bathia
Thomas Chong
Denis Dixon
David Euler
Michael Price
Paul Amyotte
Darryl Ford
Gillian Pichler
Jim Smith
Jean-Bernard Ratt
George Roter
Andy Robinson
Nathan Lysons
Zaki Ghavitian
Maria Pantazi-Peck
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Bob Dony
Diane Freeman
Santosh Gupta
Johnny Zuccon
Digvir Jayas
Dick Fletcher
Len White
Louis Tremblay
Paul Blanchard
Darrel Danyluk
John Plant
Jacinta OBrien
John Power
Michele Cooper
Andrew Steeves
Will Meyer
Ken McMartin
Table 10
Table 11
Catherine Karakatsanis
James Lee
Michael Mastromatteo
Howard Brown
Tina Maki
Louise Quesnel
Claude Lagu
Michael Ball
John Boyd
Stephanie Price
Alana Lavoie
16
17
18
19
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
di
No opinion
12
25
26
3. The agenda was followed and the time allocated to each item
12
22
15
21
15
22
14
22
19
13
19
21
20
10
11. Overall, I am satisfied with the workshop and feel that my time
was well spent
19
17
WORKSHOP
2
1
20
What was your most valuable learning or insight from this workshop?
Engineering profession is evolving mostly for the better and issues are addressed professionally
albeit at glacial speed
All of the activities that are going on in education, professional organizations and industry and the
insight from those who are in the game
Willingness to incorporate global exposure into undergraduate engineering program.
Commitment to maintain high standards
Information on US licensing. Review of Engineers Ireland and challenge in common EU
accreditation for negotiating FTAs
Energy and interest to focus on the future engineering issues. Development/management is
required and not well coordinated (yet)
Knowing about the challenges of the engineering industry and profession
Better model of selling engineering services internationally Canadian only multi-national forms.
Perils of price based procurement of engineering services to the future of engineering in Canada
The open dialogue between the various stakeholders in the engineering profession was very
enlightening
Still issues with the CEAB strongly influencing engineering education
The difficulty in educational standards and experience standard
The general feeling over an issue that we need to solve as soon as we can
Much better feel far how you in Canada work from the engineering profession. You appear a lot
more in common across the provinces then differences well worth building upon
Was all good
Accreditation drives engineering education. I was particularly interested in the education
discussions
Heating view points and experiences from other participants
Meeting some of the participants and discussing the erroneous concept that a Masters should be
required
Engineers Canada plus others (ACEC-Canada) must increase our involvement in free trade
negotiation especially procurement
Qualifications are not universal
The world is a big place
Stage setting session
American accreditation/licensing system. Practice issues (QBS)
Hearing from some engineering deans about CEAB realities
Perspectives from non-educational participants
Gained valuable learning from all speakers and participants. Enjoyed and had good conversation
with John Power
To be open to global engineers
Very good discussion of issue, very educational for me
The expectations of trade negotiations
Some important actors were absents Qualifications Board, Accreditation Board and Deans
That the organizers had entire session on engineering, education and did not bother to consult
nor invite members of the accreditation board, except the chair. The knowledge about
international educational program and systems that many AB members have could have added
maternally to the understanding of this important topic.
21
How would you rate the overall value of this event (relevance) on a scale of 1 to 5?
Note: low value 1, high value 5
5 = 16/39
The presence of DFAIT worth the effort alone, the input of speakers was insightful :) not insightful
This is very important issue for the future of engineering in Canada
There was not enough Q&A time. These should have been 1 less session and expand time for
discussion. Thank you for putting on the session.
Not much I did not already know and I am not sure how much further this workshop moved the
issue of globalization along Engineers Canada agenda.
4 = 17/39 3 = 2/39
2 = 2/39
no rating = 2/39
In your opinion, what was MOST relevant or valuable about the workshop?
22
In your opinion, what was LEAST relevant or valuable about the workshop?
The Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum has a lead role to play as it represents the
spectrum of engineering in Canada
Very good selection of speakers who were all well prepared
The direction of future of profession requires key stakeholders interaction institute disciplines
societies, regulators, practitioners. What happened to Leadership Forum what is a next
step?
Well structured and good range of speakers
Depth of Federal Government initiatives could be deepened
J. Power - I was honoured and thrilled to be involved.
Please make all presentation available electronically. It would be really useful to have them as
resources from this workshop
Need young people participation
Trust is overrated. Protecting the public is paramount and should not be overridden by
personal relationships
More background on Engineers Canadas internationalism (harmonization) efforts and
rationale for same would be useful
Invite larger student representation at future meetings
Well done International Committee
Merci Lynn!
This event was missing a clear set of objectives and expected outcomes. As well there was no
explanation about what was expected of participants prior to the event. If a future event is
planned, it is essential to articulate the objectives-goals, and expected outcomes clearly. And
these should be tied into the strategic plan of Engineers Canada, so there is an understanding
about how the results fit into Engineers Canada mandate and goals.
23
C-476-6.3
Appendix C
3-Feb-2012
Page 1 of 29
Development of an Engineers Canada action plan that addresses the globalization of engineering education, practice, and regulation.
Background
On May 5, 2011, Engineers Canada through its International Committee hosted a workshop on Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice.
The objective of the workshop was to examine and identify the potential impacts of globalization on regulating the profession in Canada with respect to international changes in
engineering education, practice and regulation.
Three themes were considered: (1) Federal Government Initiatives on International Mobility, (2) Education, and (3) Practice Issues. Workshop participants were invited to
make comments and suggestions about specific topics related to each theme, and these were documented in a summary report.
Current Situation
The International Committee has reviewed all the comments and suggestions with a view to developing an action plan for the consideration of Engineers Canada.
The purpose of the proposed action plan is in keeping with the Terms of Reference of the International Committee, namely, to provide advice on (1) prioritization of the key
international issues that Engineers Canada should address, and (2) matters related to international issues facing the profession.
To facilitate a common understanding, the following definition of globalization has been adopted:
Collectively, all the processes that increase connectivity and interdependence among peoples of the world, and which is driven by a combination of economic,
technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors.
The table lists the comments as summarized in the summary report along with the status of the issue, a suggested lead role for further development of the issue, how the issue
conforms to Engineers Canadas current strategic elements and suggested future actions.
Next Steps
The International Committee proposes to establish three task groups, one for each of Education, Registration, and Practice, to carry out a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity,
and threat) analysis about international issues and trends related to each of the themes. The task groups will be provided with both the comments obtained from the workshop and
information already received from the international activities of Engineers Canada and the International Committee. The task groups will consist of knowledgeable members,
comprising of volunteers, constituent association staff and experts from across Canada.
Each of the three SWOT analyses will be used by the International Committee to identify potential strategies to address relevant issues.
3-Feb-2012
Page 2 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Page 3 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Page 4 of 29
Listed below are the Workshop themes and the questions asked of the participants during table discussions. The comments generated from the
discussions were numbered in order from 1 to 78. After consolidating the comments and collating them into the three groups education, practice and
regulation, the comment numbers provide a link back to the questions to keep the comments in context.
What are the trade issues that you believe should be the professions highest priority for resolution?
Workshop comments 1 to 15 are in response to this question.
2.
What is the best way to involve the engineering profession so that it may serve as an effective partner in trade negotiations and the establishment of trade positions?
Workshop comments 16 to 24 are in response to this question.
3.
How should regulated professions work together to influence international trade negotiations?
Workshop comments 25 to 33 are in response to this question.
ENGINEERING EDUCATION
1.
What are the concerns the profession may have when considering certain alternative learning approaches for engineering students?
Workshop comments 34 to 38 are in response to this question.
2.
In what ways should our Canadian engineering profession and learning institutions most effectively work with their international counterparts (e.g., exchange
programs, satellite campuses, multinational degrees, etc.)?
Workshop comments 39 to 54 are in response to this question.
3.
To what degree should we work to harmonize our education standards with other countries?
Workshop comments 55 to 58 are in response to this question.
PRACTICE ISSUES
1.
What are the industrys key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?
Workshop comments 59 to 69 are in response to this question.
2.
3.
3-Feb-2012
Page 5 of 29
Status
3-Feb-2012
International Cttee
CEAB
CEQB
CEO Group
Page 6 of 29
Status
The CEAB accredits undergraduate
engineering programs that meet or
exceed educational standards acceptable
for professional engineering registration in
Canada.
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (2010), Accreditation Criteria and Procedures Appendix 5, Use of K-Factor, p. 59.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2010.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 7 of 29
Status
In respect of the CEAB Graduate Attribute
criteria, which evaluate program
outcomes, a transition period was
provided to allow Canadian engineering
programs time to develop and implement
systems required to comply with these
new criteria.
3-Feb-2012
Page 8 of 29
Status
Accreditation criteria require elements
related to the practice of engineering in
every accredited engineering program, as
follows:
3.1.8 Professionalism
3-Feb-2012
Page 9 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Status
The issue of specific modes of learning is
not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.
NCDEAS
Page 10 of 29
Status
The CEAB is responsible for monitoring
education and accreditation
developments internationally, and does
so by conducting substantial equivalency
visits, observing accreditation systems in
other jurisdictions, participating on
international committees, and through the
Washington Accord.
3-Feb-2012
Page 11 of 29
Status
Revisions to the CEAB transfer credit
regulations, to facilitate international
exchanges, are underway (currently in
consultations with Constituent
Associations and with NCDEAS).
3-Feb-2012
Engineers Canada
Engineers Canada provides financial
support to the EGAD project that allows
CEAB
the NCDEAS to develop tools and
techniques for us by all engineering
programs to demonstrate compliance with
the CEABs Graduate Attribute criteria.
Furthermore, Engineers Canada
recognizes contributions to engineering
education through its Medal for Distinction
in Engineering Education for exemplary
contribution to engineering teaching at a
Canadian University, awarded annually.
CEAB
The CEAB maintains ongoing dialogue
with the NCDEAS through the DLC
NCDEAS
(Deans Liaison Committee) about issues
related to engineering education.
In addition, Engineers Canada staff
participates in the semi-annual meetings
of the NCDEAS.
Page 12 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Status
Not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.
NCDEAS
Engineers Canada
Constitute Associations
Page 13 of 29
Status
The CEAB is responsible for monitoring
education and accreditation
developments internationally, and does
so by conducting substantial equivalency
visits, observing accreditation systems in
other jurisdictions, participating on
international committees, and through the
Washington Accord.
The WA, in particular, establishes a
global standard for engineering
education.
3-Feb-2012
Page 14 of 29
Status
IEA and to a lesser extent WFEO are
discussing education standards.
3-Feb-2012
CEAB
NCDEAS
CEEA
CFES
EWB
IC Bilateral Agreements
Page 15 of 29
Status
ACEC
The issue of QBS is the subject of an
2
Engineers Canada position statement ,
GRPA Cttee
as follows:
In the interest of public safety, innovation
and lower life cycle costs for public works,
the federal government should adopt
regulations requiring that qualificationsbased selection be used for all federal
procurement where engineering services
are retained. These requirements will
provide quality and value while promoting
sustainability in infrastructure renewal and
lead to life cycle cost savings.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_qualificationbasedselection.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 16 of 29
Status
Engineers Canadas Constituent
Associations have oversight responsibility
for the practice of engineering in Canada.
3-Feb-2012
Engineers Canada
Staff
Women in Engineering
Committee
First Nations Joint
Committee
ACEC
Page 17 of 29
Status
Demonstrated knowledge about
engineering law and ethics through
successful completion of the PPE
(Professional Practice Examination) is a
requirement for all engineering licenses in
Canada.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_rdinnovation.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 18 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Status
Not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.
ACEC
CELF
CEO Group
Engineers Canada
ACEC
CELF
ACEC
Page 19 of 29
Status
We are e.g. this workshop to discuss
the issues and identify potential actions
International Cttee
CEO Group
Engineers Canada Staff
GR messages
International Cttee
CEO Group
3-Feb-2012
Page 20 of 29
Status
Engineers Canada
Staff
CEO Group
International Cttee
CEAB
3-Feb-2012
Page 21 of 29
Status
The issue of reciprocity can occur at two
junctures: equivalence of education and
equivalence at the practice level.
CEO Group
3-Feb-2012
Page 22 of 29
CEO Group
3-Feb-2012
Page 23 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Status
The AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade)
mandates the removal of barriers that
may affect the provision of services,
including engineering services, among
the provinces and territories.
Page 24 of 29
Status
Engineers Canada staff has identified an
opportunity to advise Canadian High
Commissions about the requirements for
entry to the engineering profession.
3-Feb-2012
Page 25 of 29
3-Feb-2012
Status
The Government Relations and Public
Affairs Committee provide strategic
direction in respect of promoting dialogue
between Engineer Canada and the
federal government.
Page 26 of 29
Status
The Government Relations and Public
Affairs Committee provide strategic
direction for core messaging. Engineers
Canada staff and the CEO provide
tactical support for communications
efforts with external audiences.
3-Feb-2012
Page 27 of 29
Status
CEQB work on competency based
assessment of engineering experience
As part of the admissions process, all
Constituent Associations have some form
of evaluation procedures (i.e., a Board of
Examiners, or Experience Committee) to
assess the competence of international
experiences.
ACEC
CELF
OTHER
11. Internally, focus on creating value for
export (this includes services and goods).
15. Are we chasing a phantom? Are we at
trade capacity already?
20. Identify a source of funding for
international negotiations.
3-Feb-2012
Z
Z
Page 28 of 29
Appendix A
3-Feb-2012
Page 29 of 29
C-476-6.3
Appendix B
Impacts of Globalization
Introduction:
Education and registration requirements for international mobility are changing rapidly. In recognition of
these changes, the Engineers Canada 2011-2016 Strategic Plan calls for Assessment of impacts of
globalization on engineering education, practice and the regulation of the profession.
Information about the changes that are taking place is available from various sources; this information
requires analysis and synthesis so that current trends are identified and shared. From this, potential
impacts on engineering education, practice and regulation can be identified so that Engineers Canada
and its Constituent Associations can proactively address issues and challenges for the benefit of the
profession.
Process:
In order to address this issue, the Board recognized that it would be appropriate to carry out an in-depth
review of international trends and how they may affect the regulation of engineering in Canada.
To that purpose, the International Committee organized a workshop on the impacts of globalization of
engineering in Canada. Titled Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on
Regulation in Canada, the one day workshop was held in Ottawa on May 5, 2011, and attended by 61
participants. Speakers included experts from the Constituent Associations, industry, academia, and
included representatives from the international engineering community.
The intent of the workshop was to look in depth at international trends with respect to mobility of
engineering and the potential impacts on education, practice, and regulation in Canada. The workshop
was divided into four sessions covering a series of topics. The first session set the stage and was made
up of three presentations. The other three sessions covered issues of (1) trade and mobility; (2)
education structure and delivery; and, (3) international issues affecting engineering practice.
Each session consisted of two presentations, followed by discussions at each table to identify and
explore issues raised by the speakers and table participants, which were then reported to the group
during a plenary session. The workshop facilitator provided a synopsis of the workshop and recorded
all comments and issues raised during the table discussions.
Next Steps
The International Committee is currently reviewing and analyzing the workshop information and is
preparing a document that itemizes and collates the workshop comments into three themes: (1)
impacts on engineering education, (2) impacts on engineering practice, and (3) impacts on regulation.
Once completed, the document will be shared with the workshop participants.
Based on the three themes, the International Committee proposes to establish three task groups to
carry out a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) analysis about international issues and
trends related to each of the themes. The task groups will be provided with both the comments
obtained from the workshop and information already received from the international activities of
Engineers Canada and the International Committee. The task groups will consist of knowledgeable
members, comprising of volunteers, constituent association staff and experts from across Canada.
Each of the three SWOT analyses will be used by the International Committee to identify potential
strategies to address any relevant issue identified.
Expected Outcome:
The results of the review will allow the Committee to focus its work plan to address relevant issues so
that up to date information and recommendations can be provided to the Board, the constituent
associations, Board committees, our Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum partners, and others as
required.
Dated: February 8, 2012
C-476-6.4
Update
A status report of projects underway and policy work planned by Council for completion
during the current Council year as a means for Council to track progress it is making on its
workplan is being revised.
At the September 2011 Council meeting, a request was made to provide the actual resolution
that created the item on the report. Work is progressing and the information will be made
available as soon as the work has been completed.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.5
No moti on required
Prepared by : Alliso n Elliot Se cretariat Co -ordinator
1. Background
At its August 2010 meeting, the Executive Committee, by consensus, agreed that a
Regional Councillors Report, setting o ut chapter issues t hat were approved at each
Regional Congress to go forward to Regional Councillors Committee, be included as
an information item on fut ure Co uncil agenda.
This was in respo nse from a Councillor for the establishment of a chapter issues
record.
A complete report w ill be provided fo llowing the Regional Congress scheduled for
Frebruary 25th.
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.6
CORRESPONDENCE
Purpose: To provide Council with relevant correspondence.
1. Current Policy
At the request of the President, copies of relevant correspondence are a standing item on
Councils agenda.
2. Appendices
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.6
Appendix A
February 8, 2012
Monte Kwinter MPP (York Centre)
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation
539 Wilson Heights Boulevard
Downsview, Ontario M3H 2V7
Dear Mr. Kwinter,
Re: Bill 15, Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Act, 2011 - Meeting Request for Professional
Engineers Ontario
I am writing to you regarding Bill 15, an Act respecting the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
(OSPE), which you sponsored and that has received first reading in the Ontario Legislature.
We want to advise you that because the Bill is in conflict with the Professional Engineers Act, Professional
Engineers Ontario (PEO), the licensing and regulating body for engineers and engineering in Ontario, will be
actively opposing its passage and, as such, recommend it not be further pursued.
As far back as 2009, PEO advised OSPE of its concerns with Bill 15 and to date these concerns have not
been addressed, despite numerous meetings.
We believe passage of Bill 15 will lead to confusion regarding PEOs jurisdiction to govern licence holders
and regulate the practice of professional engineering. In particular, we are concerned that the language in Bill
15 will create public confusion about the difference between a professional engineer, i.e. someone licensed
by PEO to practise professional engineering, and someone with an engineering education.
In addition, PEO does not believe passage of Bill 15 is needed for OSPE to advocate effectively for
engineers. Indeed, in a recent survey of PEO members about Bill 15, fewer than 25 per cent of professional
engineers responded that they think OSPE requires legislative authority for it to be the advocate for the
professional engineers.
We have already had inquiries from the Opposition at Queen's Park on our position. However, we would first
like to request a meeting with you to discuss this matter further. I have asked Howard Brown to contact your
office to arrange for this meeting, at which we would be happy to share the survey of our members on this
issue and their over 60 pages of comments.
PEO would also welcome a representative from OSPE at the meeting, because while we oppose Bill 15,
PEO is very supportive of OSPE in general and works cooperatively with them in many ways. For example,
PEO jointly sponsors the Ontario Professional Engineers Awards with OSPE. We collect OSPE fees through
2|P a g e
PEO invoices. OSPE representatives sit on many PEO committees. We have a Joint Relations Committee
with them, and encourage OSPE representation on our chapters. Indeed, we wish them every success.
In closing and on behalf of PEOs 29-member Council and our 80,000 licence and certificate holders, please
let me take this opportunity to note how much PEO values your continuing support of the engineering
profession, and the long and fruitful relationship we have enjoyed with you since your first election in May
1985.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to sitting down together.
Sincerely,
3|P a g e
interest to have two Acts with the title Professional Engineer, one for the interest of the public and one for
an advocacy organization representing fewer than 10 per cent of professional engineers?
Bill 15 would conflict with the Professional Engineers Act
In addition, Bill 15 states among other things, that the objects of the Society are:
(e) to assist licensed professional engineers to achieve and maintain the highest possible standards in the
practice of professional engineering
However, the principal objects of PEO under the Professional Engineers Act is to:
(3) regulate the practice of professional engineering and to govern its members, holders of certificates of
authorization, holders of temporary licences, holders of provisional licences and holders of limited licences in
accordance with this Act, the regulations and the by-laws in order that the public interest may be served and
protected. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28, s. 2 (3); 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 11 (2).
And for the purpose of carrying out its principal object, one of PEOs additional objects is:
1. To establish, maintain and develop standards of knowledge and skill among its members.
OSPE is one of many organizations advocating for the engineering profession
Others include Consulting Engineers of Ontario, Engineers without Borders, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Society of Civil Engineers, Engineers Canada, Association of Bangladeshi Engineers of Ontario
(ABEO), Canadian Society of Iranian Engineers and Architects, Association of Romanian Engineers in
Canada, Canadian Society for Bioengineering, Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Canadian Society for
Mechanical Engineering and many others.
Legislation is not necessary for a successful advocacy body
OSPE performs some of the same roles as the Ontario Bar Association does for lawyers and the Ontario
Medical Association does for doctors. Both of these organizations are very successful advocates without
legislation.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
C-476-6.6
Appendix B
Hi Allison:
Forwarding this for correspondence for the next Council meeting package. I suggested she
consider submitting her comments as a letter to the editor of Dimensions. Its good to know
theres support and interest out there for the centre!
Cheers,
Catherine
Hello,
I have just discovered this organizationwhat a delight! I enjoyed Erica Lees excellent article on
her work in Buenos Aires; she is a fellow Queens alumna and worked with my Masters supervisor
Caroline Baillie, who began the Waste for Life project there. I plan to spend this weekend reading
all the back issues, as the focus of the organization captures my research interests. I cant wait to
learn the views of others working at the nexus of policy and engineering.
I am now in the second year of doctoral studies in the interdisciplinary Cultural Studies program at
Queens University. My home department in Mining. I am interested in government relations
with industry and with industrys perception in the general public. I would like to both attend the
May conference and contribute to the Policy Engagement Journal. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you
Anne Johnson
PhD Student in Cultural Studies
Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Queens University
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
C-476-6.6
Appendix B
Hi Allison:
Forwarding this for correspondence for the next Council meeting package. I suggested she
consider submitting her comments as a letter to the editor of Dimensions. Its good to know
theres support and interest out there for the centre!
Cheers,
Catherine
Hello,
I have just discovered this organizationwhat a delight! I enjoyed Erica Lees excellent article on
her work in Buenos Aires; she is a fellow Queens alumna and worked with my Masters supervisor
Caroline Baillie, who began the Waste for Life project there. I plan to spend this weekend reading
all the back issues, as the focus of the organization captures my research interests. I cant wait to
learn the views of others working at the nexus of policy and engineering.
I am now in the second year of doctoral studies in the interdisciplinary Cultural Studies program at
Queens University. My home department in Mining. I am interested in government relations
with industry and with industrys perception in the general public. I would like to both attend the
May conference and contribute to the Policy Engagement Journal. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you
Anne Johnson
PhD Student in Cultural Studies
Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Queens University
C-476-6.7
2. Appendices
Appendix A Complaints Statistics
Appendix B - Discipline Committee Statistics
Appendix C Licensing Statistics
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.7
Appendix A
COMPLAINTS & INVESTIGATION STATISTICS
March 2012 Council Meeting Report
2011
101
61
Investigation in progress at
previous year-end
--
88
108*
--
149
115
N/A
100
113
81
49
21
41
34
19
13
28
83
NA
230
273
NA
668
746
NA
# Complaints filed
2012
(to Feb. 8)
Glossary of Terms:
Complaints filed Complaints filed with the Registrar in a calendar year.
Investigation Complete Completed Complaint Summary document sent to the
respondent.
C-476-6.7
Appendix B
Discipline Phase
2009
2010
11
18
Hearings Commenced
13
Hearings Completed
11
16
20*
25
23
23
12
27
14**
12**
2011
2012
(up to
January 16)
*Two matters were referred separately and subsequently joined to be heard as one matter
(hearing completed in 2010)
** Two matters were joined and heard together as one (one decision issued) one of 14 in
2010 and one of 12 in 2011.
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
FEB
74,174
MAR
74,147
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,174
New Members
209
203
167
253
264
221
163
209
225
170
178
146
2,408
Reinstatements
82
54
57
42
91
47
28
18
391
127
73
87
1,097
Transfers Out
Resignation - Regular
(21)
(22)
(18)
(17)
(20)
(15)
(23)
(25)
(33)
(14)
(22)
(21)
(251)
- Retirees
(9)
(12)
(14)
(5)
(14)
(5)
(3)
(14)
(16)
(6)
(19)
(11)
(128)
(38)
(31)
(44)
(18)
(26)
(13)
(19)
(28)
(27)
(22)
(49)
(20)
(335)
Deletions - Regular
(171)
(73)
(91)
(169)
(69)
(1)
(342)
(314)
(174)
(103)
(88)
(1,595)
- Retirees
(79)
(3)
(5)
(141)
(90)
(80)
(67)
(3)
(1)
(461)
Deceased
74,147
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,909
74,909
60,884
11,626
61,077
11,634
60,995
11,687
61,144
11,561
61,393
11,587
61,577
11,637
61,615
11,679
61,558
11,581
61,619
11,642
61,628
11,618
61,610
11,616
61,656
11,677
61,656
11,677
1,637
1,552
1,633
1,555
1,511
1,514
1,580
1,463
1,487
1,516
1,591
1,576
1,576
74,147
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,909
74,909
331
83
241
37
396
57
303
35
280
34
283
39
233
165
300
193
305
146
294
175
276
205
242
46
3,484
1,215
Female Members on
Register - Beginning
New Female Engineers
6,663
41
6,704
35
6,739
29
6,768
26
6,794
52
6,846
18
6,864
46
6,910
(6)
6,904
23
6,927
19
6,946
24
6,970
17
6,663
324
6,704
6,739
6,768
6,794
6,846
6,864
6,910
6,904
6,927
6,946
6,970
6,987
6,987
Total Ending
Members on Register Summary
Full Fee Members
Partial Fee Remission - Retired
Fee Remission - Health, Post
Graduate and other
Total Membership
Membership Licence
Applications Received
Applicationsr Rec'd FCP
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
Recorded
Beginning of Month
6,490
6,561
6,524
6,654
6,606
6,686
6,734
6,840
6,906
7,073
7,227
7,400
6,490
93
75
130
64
119
118
107
80
128
96
130
110
1,250
176
59
56
134
41
43
48
165
196
145
192
207
1,462
15
15
11
19
12
20
15
13
13
12
162
P. Eng. Approvals
(62)
(78)
(48)
(87)
(83)
(65)
(59)
(78)
(72)
(42)
(60)
(57)
(791)
Deletions
(36)
(38)
(21)
(21)
(9)
(4)
(5)
(109)
(11)
(12)
(102)
(29)
(397)
(115)
(71)
(157)
(64)
(83)
(46)
(140)
(674)
New Recordings
Reinstatements
Non Payment
Deceased
Other
6,561
6,523
6,654
6,606
6,686
6,734
6,840
6,906
7,073
7,227
7,400
7,503
7,503
1,248
1,249
1,241
1,249
1,233
1,251
1,265
1,284
1,277
1,286
1,311
1,352
1,248
18
14
19
25
41
29
133
1,251
1,265
1,284
1,286
1,311
1,352
1,381
1,381
Total Ending
Female Recording on
Register
Beginning
New Female Recordings
1,249
(8)
1,241
1,249
(16)
1,233
(7)
1,277
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
FEB
4,549
4,553
62
63
4,611
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
4,536
4,568
4,575
4,580
4,586
4,605
4,621
4,641
4,656
4,683
4,549
61
61
61
63
64
59
60
59
59
63
62
4,616
4,597
4,629
4,636
4,643
4,650
4,664
4,681
4,700
4,715
4,746
4,611
37
28
49
38
32
28
38
40
37
22
50
30
429
Temporary
17
Sub Total
39
28
50
38
36
29
39
42
38
22
54
31
446
Regular
25
Temporary
Sub Total
25
(35)
(45)
(17)
(31)
(28)
(25)
(20)
(27)
(23)
(8)
(26)
(14)
(299)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(6)
Temporary
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(6)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(16)
Sub Total
(36)
(47)
(19)
(32)
(31)
(25)
(26)
(29)
(25)
(8)
(26)
(17)
(321)
C of A Holders - Beginning
Regular
Temporary
Sub Total
New Certificates Issued
Regular
Reinstatements
Deletions
Non Payment
Dormant/Suspension
Total Ending
Regular
Temporary
4,553
4,536
4,568
4,575
4,580
4,586
4,605
4,621
4,641
4,656
4,683
4,698
4,698
63
61
61
61
63
64
59
60
59
59
63
63
63
4,616
4,597
4,629
4,636
4,643
4,650
4,664
4,681
4,700
4,715
4,746
4,761
4,761
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
FEB
1,250
1,242
New Designations
Reinstatements
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
1,241
1,236
1,236
1,229
1,225
1,213
1,208
1,202
1,206
1,206
1,250
24
(8)
(5)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(15)
(5)
(6)
(5)
(8)
(3)
(75)
Consultants
Beginning of Period
Deletions
Total Ending
1,242
1,241
1,236
1,236
1,229
1,225
1,213
1,208
1,202
1,206
1,206
1,203
1,203
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
PEO STATISTICS
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
1996 - 2011
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
508
225
268
339
557
1,781
2,113
808
301
101
120
82
184
100
142
135
166
240
187
153
232
173
159
116
322
186
239
248
220
1,142
943
501
599
584
167
182
124
187
187
149
68
165
184
185
192
183
200
130
278
157
165
206
213
157
160
233
248
195
186
175
328
260
136
225
403
158
236
248
270
222
232
184
341
222
234
277
299
220
265
269
352
206
238
178
539
260
169
279
394
221
200
357
455
257
190
140
440
345
298
304
425
337
297
272
382
253
236
261
364
259
340
269
270
264
286
301
254
263
304
168
316
319
316
291
298
273
254
285
251
282
226
260
308
257
272
280
293
279
355
367
333
396
505
248
372
234
345
381
278
332
460
413
415
419
430
334
336
338
379
294
279
320
395
326
402
428
340
270
393
276
373
239
303
306
332
358
383
368
480
326
414
278
453
338
314
322
398
493
451
469
481
288
TOTAL
MONTHLY AVERAGE
Year To Date
7,203
600
7,203
1,987
166
1,987
5,333
444
5,333
1,954
163
1,954
2,373
198
2,373
2,902
242
2,902
3,101
258
3,101
3,461
288
3,461
3,850
321
3,850
3,342
279
3,342
3,371
281
3,371
3,893
324
3,893
4,413
368
4,413
4,107
342
4,107
4,137
345
4,137
4,699
392
4,699
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
C-476-6.8
Purpose: To provide Council with information on a the Compliance Tool Kit developed to assist
industry meet the requirements of the Professional Engineers Act
Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)
N/A
Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng. CEO/Registrar
To assist organizations with compliance with the Professional Engineers Act, Regulatory
Compliance is developing a Compliance Tool Kit. The Kit goes beyond dealing with the repeal
of the exception not to hold a licence set out section 12 (3) (a) to perform an act that is within
the practice of professional engineering in relation to machinery or equipment, other than
equipment of a structural nature, for use in the facilities of the persons employer in the
production of products by the persons employer.
From the discussions with numerous organizations related to the repeal of 12 (3) (a), many
have viewed it as a full Industrial Exception and they may not meet the current requirements
of the Professional Engineers Act. Thus, there may be need for a more comprehensive
Compliance Audit and Compliance Plan.
A draft of the kit was presented to the Executive Committee at its January 2012 meeting for
review and comment. The Committee directed that it forwarded to Council for its information.
1. Next Steps
Regulatory Compliance staff will continue to seek input regarding the Compliance
2. Appendices
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-6.8
Appendix A
COMPLIANCE
TOOL KIT
For compliance with:
Professional Engineers Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.28
General R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941
Ontario Regulation 260/08
January 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction
Compliance Program
Audit
Results
Plan
Implement
4
5
6
7
Appendix A (i)
Appendix A (ii)
Appendix A (iii)
Appendix A (iv)
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Introduction
The function of the Compliance Tool Kit is to provide a framework to help individuals and/or
organizations to independently assess their compliance with the laws and regulations governing
the practice of professional engineering in Ontario.
The legal and regulatory obligations of a person and/or an organization performing professional
engineering in Ontario are set out in the Professional Engineers Act, and its Regulations 941 and
260.
Compliance Program
A compliance program consists of the following stages: (1) audit current work; (2) interpret
the audit results; (3) prepare a compliance plan to address findings; (4) implement the plan
and then do a follow-up audit to confirm non-compliance items addressed.
Responsibility
Identification
Seal
Question:
What work is
done that is
professional
engineering?
Question: Who is
taking
responsibility for
the professional
engineering work?
Question: How is
the responsible
engineer
identified?
Question: How
is the
responsibility
for the work
demonstrated?
- Definition
- Buildings
- Licence
- Exceptions
- Types of Licences
- C of A
- Title
- Public Conduct
- Use of Seal
Finding
Managements Response
PEA
12.(1)
Engaging in the
practice of
professional
engineering
Determine if existing
engineers can be re-assigned
to supervise the professional
engineering work currently
done by a non-engineer
PEA
12.(3)(a)
Licence is
excepted from
professional
engineering on
machinery or
equipment for
use in an
employers
facilities making
products for the
employer. 1
R941 53.
Use of seal
Relevant compliant
organization does not
seal engineering work
on their final product
PEA
12.(3)(a)
R941 53.
Engaging in the
practice of
professional
engineering
Licence is
excepted from
professional
engineering on
machinery or
equipment for
use in an
employers
facilities making
products for the
employer. 1
Use of seal
Finding
Action
Timeline
Immediately
Establish an electronic
process to seal
engineering work on
final product
Before Use of
Seal
guideline is
changed
Relevant compliant
- organization uses
non-engineers to do
professional
engineering on their
machinery or
equipment in their
facility to make their
product
Relevant compliant
organization does
not seal engineering
work on their final
product
2 months
Before Bill 68
proclaimed
by the
Ontario
government
Web-based
Value-added
- Presentations to
help interpret the
requirements of
the Act and
regulations
- Presentations to
help interpret the
requirements of
the Act and
regulations
- List of employees
who applied to PEO
and their licence
status
- Seminars to
explain the
licensing process
- Seminars to
explain the
licensing process
- Pre-screening of
new licence
applications
- Learning tool to
prepare for the PPE
- Bundling of new
licence applications
by employer to
administer them
together
- Invigilation of
Professional
Practice Exam
(PPE)
PEOs enforcement policy is to first educate, support and seek compliance within a reasonable
period of time before taking any enforcement action against any acts of non-compliance with
the laws and regulations governing the practice of professional engineering in Ontario.
You may wish to file your compliance plan with PEO.
7
Some conditions may apply such as minimum number of attendees and/or high demand regional sites.
APPENDIX
A (i)
APPENDIX
A (ii)
APPENDIX
A (iii)
10
APPENDIX
A (iv)
11
APPENDIX
B
12
APPENDIX
C
13
APPENDIX
D
14
APPENDIX
E
15
APPENDIX
F
16
C-476-6.9
COUNCILLORS ITEMS
a)
Notices of Motion
b)
Councillors' Questions
Purpose: To provide Councillors with an opportunity to provide notice of items for inclusion
on the next Council meeting agenda, and to ask questions.
No motion required
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS Secretariat Co-ordinator
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
C-476-7.1