476 council agenda peo

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

Council Meeting

476th Meeting of Council of Professional Engineers Ontario

to be held on

Thursday, March 1, 2012 5:30 p.m. – reception

6:00 p.m. – dinner 7:00 – plenary session

Friday, March 2, 2012 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

PEO Interim Council Chambers 40 Sheppard Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario

Briefing Note - Decision

476th Meeting of Council – March 1-2, 2012 Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

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

C-476-1.1

Agenda 476th Meeting of Counci l of Professional Engineers Ontario Date: Thursday, March 1 and Friday, March 2, 2012

Time: Thursday – reception – 5:30; dinner – 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 Avenue 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 PEO’s mandate:

• Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy

• Government Liaison Program

• Mentorship Program

• Ontario Professional Engineers Awards

Discussion

Fr iday, March 2

Item # Subject Type

Call to Order

1. AGENDA

1.1 Approval of Agenda Decision

1.2 Report of the President Information

2. PRIORITY ISSUES

C-476-1.1 Appendix A

2.1 Professional Engineering Practice Guideline Decision

2.2 OSPE Participation on the Government Liaison Committee Decision

2.3 Establishment of an Emerging Engineering Disciplines Committee Decision

2.4 Canadian Framework for Licensure Elements:

• Accountability of Engineering Organizations

• Continuing Professional Development

• Negotiating International Recognition Agreements

Decision

3. ONGOING ISSUES & INITIATIVES

3.1 Establishment of an Equity and Diversity Peer Review Sub-Committee Decision

3.2 Engineer of Record Update Decision

3.3 Appointment of a Councillor to the Society of Manufacturing Engineers “Take Back Manufacturing” Initiative

Decision

3.4 Professional Standards Industrial Sub-committee Decision

4. IN-CAMERA SESSION (to be held immediately following lunch)

4.1 In-Camera Minutes – 474th Council Meeting – November 11 Decision

4.2 In-Camera Minutes – 475th Council Meeting – December 11 Decision

4.3 Building Branding Decision

4.4 Joint Relations Committee Update Information

4.5 OSPE Act Update Information

4.6 OSPE 2012 OPEA Proposal Decision

4.7 Procedure to Address Council Conduct Concerns Decision

4.8 Professional Conduct Decision

4.9 Complaints Review Councillor Reports Decision

4.10 Discipline Decisions and Reasons Information

4.11 Legal Update Information

5. CONSENT AGENDA

5.1 Minutes – 225th Executive Committee Meeting – October 11 Decision

5.2 Minutes – 474th Council Meeting – November 2011 Decision

5.3 Minutes – 475th Council Meeting – December 2011 Decision

5.4 Consulting Engineer Designation Applications Direction

5.5 Committee /Task Force Terms of Reference, Work Plans and Human Resources Plans

Decision

5.6 Changes to Committees and Task Forces Roster Decision

5.7 Approval of Examination Award Recipient Decision

6. COUNCILLOR and INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Lieutenant Governor Appointments Information

6.2 Engineers Canada Update Information

6.3 Engineers Canada Globalization Workshop Information

6.4 Status of Council Resolutions (Work Plan) Information

6.5 Regional Congress Open Issues Report Information

6.6 Correspondence Information

6.7 Complaints, Discipline and Licensing Statistics Information

6.8 Professional Engineers Act Compliance Tool Kit Information

6.9 Councillor Items Information

7. MEMBER SUBMISSION

7.1 Letter from Ray Linseman, chair, Thousand Islands Chapter Discussion

Councillors Code of Conduct

Council expects of itself and its members ethical, business-like and lawful conduct. This includes fiduciary responsibility, proper use of authority and appropriate decorum when acting as Council members or as external representatives of the association. Council expects its members to treat one another and staff members with respect, cooperation and a willingness to deal openly on all matters. PEO is committed that its operations and business will be conducted in an ethical and legal manner. Each participant (volunteer) is expected to be familiar with, and to adhere to, this code as a condition of their involvement in PEO business. Each participant shall conduct PEO business with honesty, integrity and fairness and in accordance with the applicable laws. The Code of Conduct is intended to provide the terms and/or spirit upon which acceptable/unacceptable conduct is determined and addressed. At its September 2006 meeting, Council determined that PEO volunteers should meet the same obligations and standards regarding conduct when engaged in PEO activities as they are when engaged in business activities as professional engineers.

[s. 2.4 of the Council Manual]

See next pages for upcoming and long term meeting dates

Upcoming Meetings and Events

Council Meetings 1

Friday, April 13, 2012

2

Saturday, May 12, 2012

3

Monday, June 4, 2012

Upcoming PEO Events Committee Chairs Workshop – April 12, 2012 Location to be determined Order of Honour Awards Gala – Friday, May 11, 2012 Toronto Marriott Eaton Centre Hotel, Toronto

Upcoming OCEPP Events

OCEPP Policy Engagement Series seminar – April 4, 2012 (pre-registration required) • Topic: Narrowing the commercialization gap

– Guest speaker – Sorin Cohn, P.Eng., President, BD COHNsulting • Location: Hart House, University of Toronto

For longer term planning a three-year calendar is provided on the next pages.

1 P lenary Sessions - Thursdays – recept ion/dinner 5:30 p.m. ; session 7 :00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. ; Coun ci l meet in gs – Fr id ays 9 :00 a .m. – 4:00 p.m. 2 Th ere i s no p lenary session scheduled on Thursday, Ap r i l 13, 2012 due to th e a l l day Committee Cha irs Workshop b eing held the same day. 3 he ld in conjun ct ion wi th the Order o f Honour Awards Gala (Fr iday, May 11th) and Annua l General Meet in g (Saturday , May 12th) – Toronto Marr iott Eaton Cen tre Hotel , Toronto

February20,2012–Datesaresubjecttochange Page1

2012

Key and Notes:

Statutory Holiday

PEO Council Meetings

PEO office‐ Thursday Dinner 5:30 pm –Plenary Session 7 pm to 9 pm Friday meeting 9‐4

May 11‐12 – Policy conference, OOH & AGM ‐ Toronto Marriot Eatons Centre

June 21‐23 – Rousseau, ON

Nov. 17‐ CLC & OPEA

PEO Executive Committee

PEO office‐ 3‐5 pm

Staff Luncheon

Engineers Canada

Feb. – Ottawa

May – AGM – Niagara Falls

June – Retreat (Engineers CanadaDirectors only) ‐ Cambridge, ON

Oct. 1‐4 – Ottawa

Constituent Associations AGMs

Feb. 16‐18 – Edmundston, NB

March 29 – Whitehorse, YK

April 19‐21 – Edmonton, AB

May 3‐4 – Saskatoon, SK

Jun 7‐8 – Gander, NL

Jun 14‐15 – Montreal, QC

Sept. 13‐14 – Wolfville, NS

Oct. 25‐27 – Victoria, BC

Oct. 25‐27 – Winnipeg, MB

Nov. 21 – Yellowknife, NWT

Nov. 29‐30 – Charlottetown, PEI

January S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

February S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

March S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

April S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

May S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

June S M T W T F S

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

July S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

August S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

September S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

October S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

November S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

December S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31


2013


1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31


1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

March S M T W T F S

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

Key and Notes:

Statutory Holiday



Apr 26‐27 – Policy conference, OOH & AGM ‐ TBD

June 21‐23 –TBD

Nov. 17‐ CLC & OPEA ‐ TBD



Staff Luncheon

Engineers Canada

Feb. – Ottawa

May 29‐Jun 1 – AGM –Yellowknife, NWT

June– Retreat (Engineers CanadaDirectors only) ‐ TBD



Feb 21‐22 – Fredericton, NB


April 18‐20 – Calgary, AB

May 2‐4 – Regina, SK


Jun 13‐14 – St. John, NL

Sept. 19‐20– Halifax, NS

Oct. 17‐19 – Vancouver, BC




April S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

May S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

June S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

July S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31


1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30


1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31


1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31


2014

Key and Notes:

Statutory Holiday



Apr 25‐26 – Policy conference, OOH & AGM ‐ TBD

June 19‐21 –TBD

Nov. 22‐ CLC & OPEA ‐ TBD



Staff Luncheon

Engineers Canada

Feb.25‐28 – Ottawa

May 21‐24 – AGM – TBD, NB

June – Retreat (Engineers CanadaDirectors only) ‐ TBD



Feb 20‐21 Moncton, NB


April 18‐20 – Calgary, AB

May 1‐2 – Saskatoon, SK


Jun 12‐13 – St. John, NL

Sept. 18‐19 – Halifax, NS

Oct. 16‐18 – Kelowna, BC





1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31


1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

March S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

April S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

May S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

June S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30

July S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31


1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31


1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30


1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31


1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30


1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Plenary Session Discussion


Purpose: To review PEO’s authority to carry out the following four programs:

• Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy • Government Liaison Program • Mentorship Program • Ontario Professional Engineers Awards

The Executive Committee recommended that Council review PEO’s 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 PEO’s 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

C-476


(b) for licences, recording of engineers-in-training, applications for temporary or

limited licences, granting of certificates of authorization, maintaining of registers by the registrar, hearings under the Act and appeals therefrom, and proceedings with respect to offences under the Act;

(c) payment of remuneration of officials and employees of the association and payment of all other expenses, including the cost of maintenance of premises, incurred in the operation of the headquarters of the association;

(d) payment of expenses incurred in the conduct and provision of such incidental services to encourage and assist members in the development of their professional competence and conduct and in carrying on the practice of professional engineering as are approved by the Council and as are consistent with the service and protection of the public interest in accordance with the objects of the association, including salary surveys and information, employment and career counselling, continuing education, education counselling, consulting practice services, publication of a journal and other material and liaison with government and industry with respect to the foregoing; and

(e) provision of continuing financial support to an organization or organizations defined under Section 38 by way of annual grants, non-recurring grants for start-up and other purposes, or other specific grants for interim assistance.

Briefing Note – Information


PRESIDENT’S 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.

C-476-1.2

Briefing Note – Decision


PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE GUIDELINE Purpose: Professional Standards Committee requests Council to approve the listed guideline and authorize its publication. Motion to consider: That Council:

1. Approve the Professional Engineering Practice Guideline presented at Appendix C-476-2.1, Appendix A; and

2. Direct the CEO/Registrar to publish the Guideline and notify members and the public

of its publication through usual PEO communications.

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. 2. Proposed Action / Recommendation The Professional Standards Committee and staff recommend that Council approve the Guideline 3. Next Steps (if motion approved)

• 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.

C-476-2.1

4. Peer Review & Process Followed Process Followed

Outline the Policy Development Process followed. • Draft documents were reviewed and approved by Professional Standards

Committee. • Draft documents were posted on the PEO website for member and stakeholder

consultation and an email was sent to all PEO members informing them when the document was posted.

• Draft documents were revised where warranted by comments received from members and other stakeholders after consultation with PSC.

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

Detail peer review and relevant stakeholder review undertaken • The document was posted on the PEO website for public consultation

5. Appendices

• Appendix A – Professional Engineering Practice Guideline • Appendix B – Consultation Comments for the Professional Engineering Practice Guideline

1

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

AElliot

Text Box


2

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 Engineer’s Duty to Report 9

10. Rules of Practice ....................................................... 11

10.1 Use of the Professional Engineer’s 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 Extracts from Regulation 941/90

Appendix 2 Ontario Legislation of Interest to Professional Engineers

Appendix 3 Amendment and Revision Submission Form

Appendix 4 PEO Professional Practice Guidelines

3

1. PEO MANDATE AND CRITERIA FOR GUIDELINES

Professional Engineers Ontario produces guidelines for the purpose of educating both licensees and the public about standards of practice. This is done to fulfill PEO’s legislated objectives. Section 2(4)2 of the Professional Engineers Act states: “For the purpose of carrying out its principal object”, PEO shall “establish, maintain and develop standards of qualification and standards of practice for the practice of professional engineering”. The Association’s Professional Standards Committee is responsible for developing practice standards and preparing guidelines. This guideline has been developed by a task group of the Professional Standards Committee, reviewed and approved for publication by the full Professional Standards Committee and by PEO Council. Professional Engineers Ontario produces guidelines to meet the following objectives, which were used to develop the content of this document. 1. Guidelines are intended to aid engineers in performing their engineering role in

accordance with Professional Engineers Act, O. Reg. 941/90 and O. Reg. 260/08. 2. Guidelines are intended to describe processes required by regulatory, administrative

or ethical considerations associated with specific professional services provided by engineers. They do not aim to be short courses in an engineering subject.

3. Guidelines provide criteria for acceptable practice by describing the expected outcome of the activity, identifying the engineer’s duty to the public in the particular area of practice, and identifying the relationships and interactions between the various stakeholders (e.g. government, architects, other engineers, clients).

4. Guidelines add value to the professional engineer licence for licensed engineers and for the public by establishing criteria for professional standards of competence.

5. Guidelines help the public to understand what it can expect of engineers in relation to a particular task within the practice of professional engineering. By demonstrating that the task requires specialized knowledge, higher standards of care, and responsibility for life and property, guidelines help reinforce the public perception of engineers as professionals.

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 practitioner’s 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.

4

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. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF GUIDELINE

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:

• inspire a shared vision for the profession • identify the values that are distinctive to the engineering profession • guide the professional judgment and actions of practitioners • promote a common understanding of what it means to be a member of the engineering

profession • establish criteria for a consistent quality of work that will maintain public confidence in

the profession 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.

5

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 professional’s 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 engineer’s 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 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.

6

Discipline is a key component of professional regulation. Professional engineers must conduct their work with competence and in compliance with laws and standards. Practitioners whose work is done incompetently or negligently will be subject to PEO’s complaints and discipline process. Complaints against members, temporary, provisional or limited licence holders, or certificate of authorization holders are usually referred to the Complaints Committee (section 23 of the Act). If this committee finds merit in the complaint, it is forwarded to the Discipline Committee for a formal hearing (section 28 of the Act). A finding that the practitioner has breached one or more provisions of the professional misconduct definition (subsection 28(2) of the Act and section 72, O. Reg. 941/90) can result in a fine, the award of costs of conducting the hearing, a reprimand, terms, conditions and limitations, a suspension, or revocation of one’s licence. Furthermore, the proceedings and verdict may be published in the association’s official publication and also become part of the engineer’s permanent record with the association. 7. 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 practitioner’s 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 practitioner’s 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.

7

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 practitioner’s 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 PEO’s 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.

8

Consulting Engineer Designation In addition to the licensing of individuals to practise engineering, O. Reg. 941/90 provides for the conferring of the designation of Consulting Engineer on professional engineers who fulfill the required qualifications. Only those individuals and firms authorized by this association to use the designation may call themselves consulting engineers. A practitioner does not need to be a consulting engineer in order to engage in an engineering business. A Certification of Authorization is required for any business, including a sole practitioner, that provides or offers engineering services to the public (see Section 12(2)). The association controls the use of the term Consulting Engineer by individual practitioners (section 56, O. Reg. 941) and the use of Consulting Engineers (or a variation thereof) by engineering firms (section 68, O. Reg. 941/90). In order to use either term, the practitioner or firm must obtain permission from PEO Council. Use of Titles Under the Professional Engineers Act, the title "engineer" is reserved for licensed professional engineers (meaning full licence holders and temporary licence holders) except for certain applications such as hoisting engineer and stationary engineers. Examples of recently revised job titles where the word "Engineer" has been replaced include:

• 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

9

8. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Professional responsibility refers to engineers’ obligations to conduct themselves in accordance with the technical, legal and ethical standards of the profession, including the higher duty of care associated with professional status. Whenever individuals act in their capacity as professional engineers, they must be prepared to answer for their conduct in discharging their obligations to the profession and the public. Accepting this responsibility is part of the commitment made by each individual when accepting the exclusive right to practise afforded by the professional engineer’s licence. Good professional conduct includes practising only within one’s competence. Practitioners must realize that for both legal and ethical reasons they should not undertake assignments unless they honestly and reasonably believe that they are competent to carry out the work, or that they can become competent without undue delay, risk or expense to the client or employer, or that they will engage a competent professional engineer to carry out work that is beyond their expertise. Practitioners who proceed on any other basis are not being honest with their client or employer. Failure to meet these requirements leaves engineers open to scrutiny by their peers and their professional association, pursuant to section 72(2) (h) of the O. Reg. 941/90. Refer to “professional misconduct” (section 72 of O. Reg. 941/90) and to “incompetence” (section 28(3) of the Act). It should be noted that incompetence can mean not only a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment, but also the suffering from a physical or mental condition that can interfere with the exercise of one’s professional judgment. In assessing their own position, professional engineers should be aware of the essential difference between “qualification” and “competence.” Dictionaries define qualification as “a quality or accomplishment which fits a person for some function, office or the like.” This includes the conferring of degrees and certification by technical bodies. It is a one-time, static thing that cannot be lost or diminished by time. On the other hand, competence is a “quality of having suitable skill, knowledge, or experience for some purpose.” Competence, then, is a dynamic quality that relates to the present task, assignment or activity. Practitioners need to always assess their competence to undertake the proposed assignment before agreeing to carry out the work. This will involve determining that their theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the field are of suitable pertinence, extent and depth to enable them to provide a service that will be useful for the client or employer. 9. ENGINEER’S DUTY TO REPORT

The duty to report is an essential component of an engineer’s commitment to professionalism. In fact, it is so fundamental that most engineers probably don’t realize that they are doing this daily when they identify designs, processes and procedures that are unsafe, unhealthy, or uneconomical (which is detrimental to the public welfare) and then take action to correct these problems. Indeed, no professional engineer should disparage or renege on his or her duty to report. Professional engineers should know that their duty to report is rather limited, relating only to situations where they apply judgment based on their professional training, experience and competence. Though each professional engineer “shall regard the practitioner’s duty to protect the public welfare as paramount” (section 77(2).i, O. Reg. 941/90), the duty to report isn’t intended to make professional engineers full-time guardians of the public interest, responsible

10

for pointing out all of society’s 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 practitioner’s 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 engineer’s 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 employer’s or client’s business. If possible, limit your discussions to in-house engineers. If you can’t 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

11

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 engineer’s 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 profession’s 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. RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE

10.1 Use of the Professional Engineer’s Seal 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

12

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 Relations with Clients and Employers 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 client’s or employer’s 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.

13

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 employer’s 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 practitioner’s duty to set conditions beforehand and have arrangements made to meet time exigencies.

10.3 Assuming Project begun by another Practitioner Occasionally, a practitioner will be asked to complete an assignment started by another practitioner. The Professional Engineers Act imposes no duties or obligations on a practitioner taking on a project after another practitioner has been terminated. So, for instance, the second practitioner should not be concerned about whether the first practitioner was paid by the client. That is an issue between the first practitioner and the client. There is also no need for the second practitioner to get permission from the first practitioner in order to take over the project. It is the client’s right to terminate and to retain whomever the client chooses. According to the Professional Engineers Act, the second practitioner needs only to obtain from the client assurance that the first practitioner has been terminated.

10.4 Due Diligence Due diligence refers to a requirement of a person, in a position of having duties to others, to take all reasonable steps to protect the interests of parties that may be affected by the practitioner’s actions before an incident occurs. Being able to demonstrate due diligence is important as a legal defence against claims of negligence or charges of offences (e.g., occupational health and safety). A practitioner will have demonstrated due diligence if he or she has:

• identified all actual or potential hazards to the interests of the client, employer or public associated with the work

• assessed the risk to the interests of any affected party associated with the identified hazards

• taken steps to control or reduce those hazards • communicated the risks to all affected parties

10.5 Report Writing The report is a record of the engineering service provided that may be referenced by persons

14

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 report’s

conclusion or findings • identification of all responsible persons contributing to the report • professional engineer’s 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 engineer’s opinion. It is important to ensure that the client is not misled by an overly favourable report or by the practitioner’s 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 Engineer’s Seal for more information on this distinction.

15

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 A professional opinion is any guidance involving an application of professional knowledge provided to a client, employer or others that this person or persons will rely upon or at least take into consideration in making their own decisions. Because these parties are relying on the opinion, the practitioner will be responsible for the contents of this guidance. Therefore offer opinions only when asked or when the practitioner has knowledge of facts that may affect the interests of the client or employer. When providing opinions identify the facts relied on and any factors that, if they arise, may alter or negate the opinion. All opinions should be supplied in writing. If provided orally, the practitioner is advised to follow up with a memo, letter or email in order to ensure that the client or employer has a clear explanation of the opinion and the facts and reasons leading to it. Since the professional engineer is professionally bound to express an opinion only when it is based on adequate knowledge and sound conviction the practitioner must engage in sufficient investigation and analysis to provide a thoroughly considered opinion. It is important that the engineer decide how much work is required to provide the client with the assurance that he or she seeks. However, the engineer must be fully aware of the client’s needs, and must address only these, avoiding unnecessary work. The engineer should inform the client about the need for all calculations, analyses, and tests necessary to produce a technical opinion, and ensure that the client is fully aware of possible consequences, if the required work is not authorized. Professionals do not have to be providing advice or giving opinions as part of a formal relationship with a client or employer in order to incur liability. Even offering advice about engineering related matters in an informal setting such as social gathering (“gratuitous advice”) could expose a practitioner to litigious claims. For this reason, professional engineers should follow the example of doctors and lawyers and refrain from offering opinions or advice except when properly engaged in a client-practitioner relationship.

10.7 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.

16

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 practitioner’s 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 client’s or employer’s 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 client’s or another practitioner’s disadvantage. Engineers are expected to decline employment or a commission that would require disclosure of such information.

17

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 engineer’s 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 practitioner’s duty to public wel-fare 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 engineer’s report with anyone other than the client or the client’s 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 client’s 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 client’s 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 employer’s 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.

18

10.10 Volunteering Though a practitioner’s 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. Practitioners should limit their input to explaining technical matters to co-volunteers and constituents, outlining the need for professional engineering input and preparing requests for proposal for engineering services. The practitioner’s expertise is helpful in carrying out these non-engineering tasks. The Professional Engineers Act makes no distinction between providing professional engineering services for a fee or on a volunteer basis. The individual or volunteer organization providing professional engineering services will need a Certificate of Authorization. You should also remember that providing services as a volunteer does not make one immune to liability. Since either the client or a third party affected by the work can bring a lawsuit against the engineer or the volunteer organization, volunteers are urged to investigate their need for professional liability insurance.

10.11 Data Gathering at Beginning of Project i) 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

19

that all information be properly identified and recorded. Using the following list, the engineer should record:

• time, place and location of site investigation(s); • where, when and from whom information was obtained; • what the information is to be used for; • names and descriptions of things (equipment, structures, property, etc.) studied;

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 practitioner’s 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.

20

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 manager’s 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 practitioner’s 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 engineer’s 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 municipality’s 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 engineer’s potential

21

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 contractor’s 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 owner’s lawyer and building manager. During litigation investigations, ABC’s 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 contractor’s lawyer and chief engineer. Both experts prepare reports, and litigation drags out for a considerable time. ABC’s 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 contractor’s lawyer learns that XYZ has the junior engineer on staff. The contractor’s 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 contractor’s 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 firm’s 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.

22

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, M’s 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

23

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 association’s 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 engineer’s employer) requires a Certificate of Authorization. This applies to practitioners operating a part-time engineering business. 14. ADVERTISING

3 Again, there is a legislative proposal at the time of printing to remove the industrial exemption.

24

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 practitioner’s 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 member’s’ 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;

• fails to give appropriate indications of cooperation by associated firm or individuals involved in specified projects;

• 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 practitioner’s work;

• denigrates or belittles another professional’s 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

• directly or indirectly criticizes a practitioner or the employer of a practitioner. 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 As the administrator of a self-regulating profession the Council of PEO is responsible for regulating the practice of professional engineering by ensuring that practitioners conform to generally recognized norms of practice. It is universally recognized that adherence by practitioners to quality standards for professional services plays an important part in shaping both the role and the image of the profession. To ensure that this can be done the Professional Engineers Act gives PEO Council the authority to establish, develop, and maintain standards of practice that must be adhered to by all competent practitioners. Practitioners can benefit from benchmarks which help them determine the proper level of service that they need to provide. However, professional engineers are expected to rely on their own judgment in deciding how to fulfill the tasks entrusted to them. For this reason, instead of dictating rigid rules, PEO's professional standards describe the required outcome of the engineer’s activities and leave the method of accomplishing these goals to the discretion of the engineer. The professional standards prescribed by PEO Council can be found in O. Reg. 260/08, a

25

regulation under the Professional Engineers Act. The current version of this regulation can be found on the PEO website. 16. PRACTICE GUIDELINES In addition to prescribed standards, PEO publishes guidelines providing advice and recommendations to practitioners on best practices. One very important purpose for PEO's guidelines is to explain the role of the professional engineer to the public, especially clients and employers. Often those who hire engineers do not realize the extent of the legal and ethical obligations imposed on engineers because of their professional status. Since the practitioner is responsible for both performing work competently and complying with the Professional Engineers Act it is important that the practitioner, not the client or employer, decides how to carry out a professional engineering assignment. By demonstrating that the project requires specialized knowledge, a professional standard of service, and responsibility for life and property, guidelines provide engineers with a means to justify their assessment of the scope of work for each project for which they accept professional responsibility. Since professional engineers function within what is often a very complex legal, technical and social environment it is important for an engineer to know how to fit into the larger endeavour. Often, in addition to an employer’s or client’s expectations an engineer engaged to perform a specific task must respond to many particular duties derived from the Code of Ethics or demand-side legislation. Guidelines, although not mandatory standards, are considered by peers within the profession to be persuasive indicators of what is considered to be minimum acceptable performance. They are intended to aid engineers perform their engineering role in accordance with the Professional Engineers Act and subordinate regulations by interpreting how these determine the appropriate scope of services to be provided in certain areas of practice. Since the ethical and statutory obligations set out in the Professional Engineers Act and other legislation are broadly defined, practice guidelines interpret the legislative requirements and explain how these impose specific duties in narrow areas of practice. In most cases the guidelines provide a general definition of the roles and responsibilities of professional engineers and are intended to advise practitioners of what would normally be expected of a reasonable and prudent engineer practising in a particular area. They are not intended to specify each and every aspect of a particular task. Instead, guidelines outline a set of core services or issues that the practitioner should consider. It is not intended that all services listed in the scope of practice be provided on all projects. However, the engineer should be aware of all the services reasonably associated with the task. On the other hand, guidelines should not be considered as limiting the scope of services that may be necessary to fulfill the duties of a professional engineer. Engineers must exercise professional judgment in recommending to employers or clients which services should be applied to each project, depending on the project’s size and complexity. The guidelines should not be considered as a means of reducing or otherwise limiting an engineer’s responsibility for the outcome of services rendered. PEO guidelines are not intended to be short courses in an engineering subject. Practitioners are expected to be competent in their area of work by virtue of education and experience before engaging in professional practice. PEO guidelines are also not prescriptive manuals since they do not provide detailed instructions for undertaking a task such as design. When practitioners

26

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).

27

APPENDIX 1 EXTRACTS FROM REGULATION 941/90 Practitioners should be familiar with all aspects of the Professional Engineers Act and its regulations. The following are provided in this guideline only 1. 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.

72. (1) In this section,

“harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is

known or ought reasonably to be known as unwelcome and that might reasonably

be regarded as interfering in a professional engineering relationship;

“negligence” means an act or an omission in the carrying out of the work of a

practitioner that constitutes a failure to maintain the standards that a reasonable and

prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941,

s. 72 (1); O. Reg. 657/00, s. 1 (1).

(2) For the purposes of the Act and this Regulation,

“professional misconduct” means,

(a) negligence,

(b) failure to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of life, health or

property of a person who may be affected by the work for which the

practitioner is responsible,

(c) failure to act to correct or report a situation that the practitioner believes may

endanger the safety or the welfare of the public,

(d) failure to make responsible provision for complying with applicable statutes,

regulations, standards, codes, by-laws and rules in connection with work being

undertaken by or under the responsibility of the practitioner,

(e) signing or sealing a final drawing, specification, plan, report or other document

not actually prepared or checked by the practitioner,

(f) failure of a practitioner to present clearly to the practitioner’s employer the

consequences to be expected from a deviation proposed in work, if the

professional engineering judgment of the practitioner is overruled by non-

technical authority in cases where the practitioner is responsible for the

technical adequacy of professional engineering work,

(g) breach of the Act or regulations, other than an action that is solely a breach of

28

the code of ethics,

(h) undertaking work the practitioner is not competent to perform by virtue of the

practitioner’s training and experience,

(i) 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, and in particular, without limiting the generality of

the foregoing, carrying out any of the following acts without making such a

prior disclosure:

1. Accepting compensation in any form for a particular service from more

than one party.

2. Submitting a tender or acting as a contractor in respect of work upon

which the practitioner may be performing as a professional engineer.

3. Participating in the supply of material or equipment to be used by the

employer or client of the practitioner.

4. Contracting in the practitioner’s own right to perform professional

engineering services for other than the practitioner’s employer.

5. Expressing opinions or making statements concerning matters within the

practice of professional engineering of public interest where the opinions

or statements are inspired or paid for by other interests,

(j) conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that,

having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the

engineering profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional,

(k) failure by a practitioner to abide by the terms, conditions or limitations of the

practitioner’s licence, provisional licence, limited licence, temporary licence or

certificate,

(l) failure to supply documents or information requested by an investigator acting

under section 33 of the Act,

(m) permitting, counselling or assisting a person who is not a practitioner to

engage in the practice of professional engineering except as provided for in the

Act or the regulations,

(n) harassment. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941, s. 72 (2); O. Reg. 657/00, s. 1 (2); O. Reg.

13/03, s. 19.

29

2. THE CODE OF ETHICS Practitioners are bound, as an obligation of their licence to practise professional engineering, to comply with the Code of Ethics given in Section 77, O. Reg. 941/90. The code of ethics is a set of principles and rules that describe the kinds of professional conduct that are considered appropriate or inappropriate by the profession. Practitioners must apply these rules in governing all their professional assignments. Decisions and choices made by practitioners must reflect the values and principles set out in the code.

77. The following is the Code of Ethics of the Association:

1. It is the duty of a practitioner to the public, to the practitioner’s employer, to the

practitioner’s clients, to other members of the practitioner’s profession, and to

the practitioner to act at all times with,

i. fairness and loyalty to the practitioner’s associates, employers, clients,

subordinates and employees,

ii. fidelity to public needs,

iii. devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional integrity,

iv. knowledge of developments in the area of professional engineering

relevant to any services that are undertaken, and

v. competence in the performance of any professional engineering services

that are undertaken.

2. A practitioner shall,

i. regard the practitioner’s duty to public welfare as paramount,

ii. endeavour at all times to enhance the public regard for the practitioner’s

profession by extending the public knowledge thereof and discouraging

untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements with respect to professional

engineering,

iii. not express publicly, or while the practitioner is serving as a witness

before a court, commission or other tribunal, opinions on professional

engineering matters that are not founded on adequate knowledge and

honest conviction,

iv. endeavour to keep the practitioner’s licence, temporary licence,

provisional licence, limited licence or certificate of authorization, as the

case may be, permanently displayed in the practitioner’s place of

business.

3. A practitioner shall act in professional engineering matters for each employer as

a faithful agent or trustee and shall regard as confidential information obtained

by the practitioner as to the business affairs, technical methods or processes of

an employer and avoid or disclose a conflict of interest that might influence

30

the practitioner’s actions or judgment.

4. A practitioner must disclose immediately to the practitioner’s client any interest,

direct or indirect, that might be construed as prejudicial in any way to the

professional judgment of the practitioner in rendering service to the client.

5. A practitioner who is an employee-engineer and is contracting in the

practitioner’s own name to perform professional engineering work for other

than the practitioner’s employer, must provide the practitioner’s client with a

written statement of the nature of the practitioner’s status as an employee and

the attendant limitations on the practitioner’s services to the client, must

satisfy the practitioner that the work will not conflict with the practitioner’s

duty to the practitioner’s employer, and must inform the practitioner’s

employer of the work.

6. A practitioner must co-operate in working with other professionals engaged on a

project.

7. A practitioner shall,

i. act towards other practitioners with courtesy and good faith,

ii. not accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for

the same employer except with the knowledge of the other practitioner or

except where the connection of the other practitioner with the work has

been terminated,

iii. not maliciously injure the reputation or business of another practitioner,

iv. not attempt to gain an advantage over other practitioners by paying or

accepting a commission in securing professional engineering work, and

v. give proper credit for engineering work, uphold the principle of adequate

compensation for engineering work, provide opportunity for professional

development and advancement of the practitioner’s associates and

subordinates, and extend the effectiveness of the profession through the

interchange of engineering information and experience.

8. A practitioner shall maintain the honour and integrity of the practitioner’s

profession and without fear or favour expose before the proper tribunals

unprofessional, dishonest or unethical conduct by any other practitioner.

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941, s. 77; O. Reg. 48/92, s. 1; O. Reg. 13/03, s. 21.

31

APPENDIX 2 PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION OF INTEREST TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Legislation Topics Covered

Ontario Building Code, O. Reg. 350/06 Standards for building construction; requirement for general review of construction by professional engineer; rules and procedures for obtaining building permits.

Fire Code - O. Reg. 213/07

Requirements for fire prevention and protection in buildings and for industrial and commercial operations.

Occupational Health and Safety Act, Construction Projects, O. Reg. 213/91

Personal safety requirements on construction sites; design standards for scaffolding, shoring, and other temporary works; requirements for review of temporary works, tower cranes and other construction equipment by professional engineers.

Occupational Health and Safety Act, Industrial Establishments, Reg. 851

Personal safety requirements for workers in industrial facilities and logging operations; requirements for pre-start health and safety reviews by professional engineers; standards for machine guarding, material handling, handling molten metals; protective equipment; confined spaces; fire prevention.

Occupational Health and Safety Act, Mines and Mining Plants, Reg. 854

Standards for electrical and mechanical equipment, mine hoists and railways; protection of workers; requirements for reports by professional engineers.

Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002

Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 - O. Reg. 128/04

Certification of drinking water system operators and water quality analysts

Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 - O. Reg. 170/03

Engineering reports for drinking water systems

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19

Records of Site Condition – O. Reg. 153/04

Requirements for record of site conditions for brownfield sites

Waste Management - R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 347

Rules for handling, transporting and disposing of waste of various kinds

32

Ontario Water Resources Act Permits for taking water from ground or well sources; licences for well drillers and well technicians.

Nutrient Management Act, 2002 - O. Reg. 267/03

Requirements and standards for design of nutrient storage containers, liquid nutrient transfer systems, anaerobic digesters.

Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000

Creates the Technical Standards and Safety Association for the purpose of enhancing public safety by harmonizing and ensuring compliance with technical standards in a number of areas such as boilers, pressure vessels, elevators, fuel handling and distribution, and amusement rides; responsible for licensing facilities and registering technicians in areas of its responsibility.

Propane Storage And Handling – O. Reg. 211/01

Requirements for licensing facilities; certification of operators; standards for safe operation of facilities; risk assessment by professional engineer.

Elevating Devices – O. Reg. 209/01

Definition of elevating devices; requirements for elevating devices to be constructed to specific standards; license required for elevating device; elevating devices to be designed by professional engineers; designs to be approved by TSSA; criteria for design submissions; testing and maintenance requirements; contractors require license.

Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems – O. Reg. 210/01

Gaseous Fuels – O. Reg. 212/01

Fuel Oil – O. Reg. 213/01

Compressed Gas – O. Reg. 214/01

Liquid Fuels – O. Reg. 217/01

Standards for design and construction of fuel distribution and handling facilities; requirements for licensing of facilities; duties of owners of facilities

Boilers and Pressure Vessels – O. Reg. 220/01

Criteria for the construction, maintenance, use, operation, repair and service of boilers, pressure vessels and piping; registration of equipment; registration requires equipment drawings prepared by a professional engineer.

Electricity Act, 1998

Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Restricts operation of an electrical

33

Master Electricians – O. Reg. 570/05 contracting business to person licensed under the Act; business shall be have master electrician responsible for all electrical work done by the business; a professional engineer working for the electrical contracting business may be licensed as a master electrician.

Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, R.S.O. c. P.50

Powers and procedures for acquiring land and highways; designation of highways; restrictions related to each type of highway.

Standards for Bridges – O. Reg. 104/97

Requirement for biannual inspections under direction of professional engineer of every bridge to verify structural integrity.

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O 1990, c.H.8 Traffic laws; vehicle and operator licensing; vehicle safety requirements; dealing with driving or vehicle offenses.

Standards to Determine Allowable Gross Vehicle Weight for Bridges – O. Reg. 103/97

Gross weight limit for bridges to be determined and set by two professional engineers.

34

APPENDIX 3: AMENDMENT AND REVISION SUBMISSION FORM Guideline:

Statement of proposed amendment or revision:

Reason:

Submitted by: Date:

Mail: Professional Engineers Ontario 101-40 Sheppard Avenue West Toronto ON M2N 6K9

Attention: José Vera, P.Eng., Standards and Guidelines

Fax: (416) 224-1579 Email: [email protected]

35

APPENDIX 4 PEO PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

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 Engineer’s 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)

1

Consultation Comments

Document: Professional Practice Revision: 3 Review Period: March 25, 2011 – June 7, 2011

Commentator Comments PEO Response Paul Acchione, P.Eng. 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. Page 5, section 5, 4th last line Change “professional are” to “professionals are” Reason: typo Page 7, section 7, second last paragraph Before the first comma add “within an organization”. At the end of the paragraph add “by offering services to the public” Reason: Facilitates understanding of the text. Page 10, section 9, Whistle-blowing sub heading, last paragraph Advice by PEO is a necessary first step but not a sufficient final step by PEO. The PEO Registrar should

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 PEO will take this suggestion under advisement and conduct a policy inquiry to consider recommendations

C-476-2.1 Appendix B

2

pursue enforcement of the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act not only on engineers by also on employers who attempt to muzzle the Act by hiring their own engineers and then refusing to take their advice. PEO should take every opportunity to establish case law that give PEO that power or lobby government for changes to the Act to give PEO such authority. Reason: From a practical point of view, engineers are not in a financial position to take on a corporation in a legal dispute. If the P. Eng. resigns the public safety interest is not satisfied because the employer still proceeds with a risky operation. In these situations, effectively the engineer is charging the company with interfering with the professional engineer’s duties to protect public safety. Could not the PEO Registrar take up the issue with the corporation and if PEO agrees the company is acting irresponsibly, raise the matter before the courts on the public’s behalf as a matter of public safety covered by the P. Eng. Act? Page 16, section 10.9, 3rd last paragraph. Add a sentence at the end “The engineers should also seek legal advice before contravening the confidentiality agreement.” Reason: The prudent thing to do in a complex legal matter. Page 16, section 10.9, 4th last paragraph. Add a new final paragraph or a separate sub-section dealing with the use of the internet and other electronic media covering plagiarism, copyright, trade secrets and confidentiality requirements especially is using information from an access restricted site in the

to Council. Thank you. This guideline has been revised as noted. Thank you. This suggestion has been noted. However, the legal issues involved are too complex for PEO to offer advice on all these issues.

3

engineer’s work or documents. Reason: A new areas of concern in the technical community as a result of easy to use on-line resources. We often forget to protect the interests of third parties when using those resources. They are not always free of obligations on the part of the user and the penalties if caught can be severe (eg: even loss of you university degree or licence). Page 22, section 14, first line Change “advertising” to “advertise” Reason: Typo Page 23, section 14, 7th bullet Change “does not directly” to “directly” Reason: Double negative created by the negative introductory sentence to the list of items makes this item the opposite of what is required. 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. With that said, the engineering business is changing.

Revised Revised Reference to the federal e-laws site has been included. http://laws.justice.gc.ca

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/�

4

Their is more competition with foreign firms now doing work for Ontario facilities. Their engineering deliverables need to be reviewed and stamped by 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. This revision offers us an opportunity, and we hope the committee undertakes a modest addition to the standard, to deal with the following questions: When an engineer is hired only to review and stamp foreign prepared engineering deliverables for an Ontario facility what duties of care must s/he exercise on behalf of the public as part of that review? When an engineer is supervised by a non-engineer, to what extent can that professional engineer accept direction from that supervisor to change the work of the professional engineer? To what extent can non-engineer supervisors or managers review and approve the engineering work of engineers? When regulatory requirements require independent review and/or approval of specific work documents, do the independent reviewers and approvers require a

This might be more appropriately considered as an addition to the Guideline for Use of the Professional Engineer’s Seal. Supervision and delegation is the subject of a separate professional standard which will be augmented by its own guideline. We will consider this question in that document. This question will be addressed by PEO’s policy department.

5

professional engineering licence? For example the nuclear CSA N286 standards require via the facility holder’s license to independently review and approve all nuclear safety related work – a current topic of interest as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

Konrad Brenner, P.Eng. I recommend that Section 10.10, Volunteering, be amended in the draft guideline for Professional Engineering. I suggest to the first and second sentence in the first paragraph should added " unless the engineer has a Certificate of Authorization and has considered all aspects of insurance and liability".

There is a potential conflict of interest if volunteer practitioners offer their professional engineering services to their volunteer organizations. Even if these services were offered pro bono the role of the volunteer practitioner is to help the volunteer organization in an impartial way and not to pursue their volunteer organization to become a client.

Martin Buchanan, P.Eng. Section 6, The Engineering Profession in Ontario doesn’t directly mention anything about non members or improperly licensed or registered entities or persons claiming to be engineers or to do engineering. To make it more clear and to emphasize that a person needs to be licensed, some words should be added at the end of the 2nd last sentence of the 2nd paragraph: The primary mandate of any professional regulatory body is to protect the public from unqualified, incompetent, or unfit practitioners or unlicensed or unregistered entities or persons claiming to do engineering or to be engineers. Something to this effect is required because these guidelines are also for the public indicated by item 5 under the PEO Mandate section (section 1) and under

Thank you. These concerns have been noted.

6

section 3, Purpose and Scope of the Guideline. Stephen Burns, P.Eng. Statement of proposed amendment or revision:

1. Page 13 – 2nd last bullet recommends identifying ‘all’ persons. I suggest that this could be limited to ‘all responsible’ persons.

2. Page 23 – last bullet of Section 14 says the opposite of what is intended.

Reason: 1. In an engineering firm many individuals may

‘contribute’ to a report. Contributions can often be minor. To identify ‘all’ seems excessive.

2. Self explanatory.

Revised Revised

Rich Deakin, P.Eng. Thank you for your invitation to review the “GUIDELINE Professional Engineering Practice”. Overall I found this guideline to be thorough and comprehensive. It is quite informative and easy to understand with its use of simple terminology; the information contained within the appendices is helpful reference material. I found one drafting error under section “14. ADVERTISING”, in the list presented on page 23 as follows: Practitioners should avoid advertising that: • claims a greater degree or extent of responsibility for a specified project or projects than is the fact; • fails to give appropriate indications of cooperation by associated firm or individuals involved in specified projects; • 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

7

practitioner’s work; • denigrates or belittles another professional’s 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: “directly or indirectly criticizes a practitioner or the employer of a practitioner.”

Revised

Brian W. Hester, P. Eng. The document represents a lot of work and would be improved by editing. A quick reading of the document reveals changes of voice, style and punctuation that need to be remedied to improve the document's clarity. As it stands the several contributors can be identified by their styles of writing. You should engage an editor to smooth out these inconsistences.

Thank you. The document will be thoroughly edited by PEO’s Communications department before publication.

Ken Hodges, P.Eng, F.CSCE I only have a couple of comments. Section 2 “Preface” is probably not needed in the document itself. The content, or a modification thereof, could be used in a forwarding covering format. The introduction in Section 4 is sufficient. Section 7 might address the use of the label “engineer” to the public. For instance can the holder of a limited

Standard bodies recommend that each document should have a history so that readers will understand the circumstances leading to the publication of the document. The preface provides the history of this document. Agreed. The document is revised to include a section on the use of titles.

8

licence call themselves an “engineer”. Perhaps this could be addressed in Section 10. It could be that I have missed this in the document, but I feel it is important, if only from protection of the public standpoint.

Paul E. Mak, EIT, AScT

I have read through some of this document and I am pleased to see that such a document exists. Through reading part of this document it seems to me that it may have in fact been around for more than five years. The existence of this document would have been very helpful to me earlier on in my engineering career. My main point I wish to bring up is that in revising this document it would be helpful to see what sections, in whole or in part, have been modified since the last edition. One particular practice is to include a thick vertical black bar in the left had margin next to new or changed material. If this document was ever prepared for professional printing then these editorial markings could be removed. As I don't work in the Environmental area I have not viewed the other document, nor do I have any comment on it - save perhaps the same markings be included in revisions.

Agreed that identification of changes to a document are useful, especially in cases where for legal reasons it is important to know that the current document is different from one that may have applied. However, this document is a major revision with substantial changes. Each edition should be read in its entirety.

David Moses, P.Eng. On March 25, 2011, I received the email notice for the revised "Guideline for Professional Engineering Practice" document. I have read it and agree with the content but have found just a few grammatical errors and one question on content, as follows: Section 5, paragraph 2 sentence 2: re-phrase the sentence

9

Section 5 para 3 2nd last sentence: add 's' to professional Section 6 para 3, sentence 2: add 's' to law Section 7 para 2, bullet 1: 'engineer' not engineering Section 7, para 3: P.Eng. short form is used first time, whereas the following paragraph says Professional Engineer (P.Eng.). Put the long firm in para 3 with P.Eng. in parentheses and short form in para 4. Page 7: Consulting Engineers: I was informed a few years ago that PEO restricts the use of specialties in the description of consulting engineers. i.e. one cannot say a firm is a "Consulting Structural Engineer". This restriction on 'variations' should be noted in the guildeline, if it is indeed true. However, I know of many firms who do not abide by this in their advertising. I would be interested to know where PEO stands on this now. Section 14 sentence 1: 'advertise' not advertising.

Revised Revised Revised Revised Agreed, the guideline has been revised to include a section on the use of titles. Revised

Dave Parsons, P. Eng. (retired)

Comments: Section 5: Characteristics of a Profession--- 2nd last sentence: “In order to foster this behaviour professional are expected to comply with a code of ethics.” What does this mean?? Section 7: License: Limited license--- why is 13 years or more of specialized experience required?? This seems to me to be an unduly excessive amount of experience

Revised – “engineers” was missing from sentence. This is a requirement stipulated in section 46.2 of O.Reg. 941.

10

to develop competence in a specialized area of professional engineering. Section 11: Conflicts of Interest: Is the QA Manager at Company C the person referred to as “this engineer”? There would be a potential conflict regardless of whether the QA Manager was an engineer.

Revised to indicate that the QA Manager is a professional engineer.

Roger Toutant, P.Eng. Page 3: a) There is reference to the engineer's duty to the public, but "duty to the public" is very vague. I think what you're trying to say is "duty to customers and employers". Also, I don't believe that such guidelines should imply knowledge of the "expectations" of the public. b) Doesn't the statement "Following the guideline may not ensure that a member has provided services conforming to an acceptable standard" fight against the claim that the guidelines are beneficial? 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

Engineers are unique compared to other regulated professionals in that they have an obligation to take action to prevent a situation involving engineering that might cause harm to the public. Consequently, this reference is necessary. The sentence has been revised to: "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." Furthermore, it is worth noting that this sentence is simply pointing out a particular limitation. Guidelines have limitations, for example guidelines are not intended to replace a practitioner’s professional judgment. These limitations in no way reduce the benefits that guidelines provide, for example guidelines aid engineers in performing their engineering role in accordance with the Professional Engineers Act. Thank you. These concerns have been noted.

11

those who think they have a 'vision'. b) An explanation of why engineers would need guidelines to "promote a common understanding of what it means to be a member of the engineering profession" would be nice. After all, engineers already know who they are. c) I always object to the definition of Engineering as found in the PEO Act. I find the test of "who is an engineer" to be extraordinarily broad and covers practically any scientific profession. A more precise definition should be provided. Also, it would be useful to define the term "public welfare" because it is a term that is always misused by those who wish to exert control over others. 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

Engineers may know who they are. However, our experience shows that even in important issues like liability and professional responsibility not all members have reached a common understanding of the roles and responsibilities that define the profession. Agreed that the definition is not as useful as it could be. However, it is the legal definition and cannot be changed by the guideline. We are unable to comment on the effectiveness of the systems used in other jurisdictions. However, we can point out that there are several ways that PEO achieves this goal. For example, PEO licenses only qualified practitioners using registration practices that are fair, objective, impartial, and transparent. All professions that issue licenses have power provided under their Acts to control the activities of license

12

and other unlawful acts be sufficient to address engineers who misbehave? Shouldn't the PEO focus on vetting the credentials of engineers and then allow customers to make up their minds whether or not they wish to do business with them, or whether or not they require the P.Eng. designation? b) "A tool and die designer does not need a licence" Why not? Page 7: a) What is the definition of a "collaborator"? b) Where on earth did 13 years come: "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." What is the justification for this period of time? Why not 3 years, or 23 years? c) We know that "A Certification of Authorization is required for any business, including a sole practitioner, that provides or offers engineering services to the public." But, what does the CoA offer that licensing doesn't already achieve? On the surface it seems like only a revenue maker for the PEO. Some justification should be provided. d) "Professional responsibility refers to engineers’ obligations to conduct themselves in accordance with the technical, legal and ethical standards of the profession, including the higher duty of care associated

holders. A civil or criminal proceeding against an individual for negligence or other unlawful acts would not be able to revoke, suspend or otherwise affect the license. Handing that power to the courts would remove the self-regulation of the profession. This is an exception to licensure provided by section 12.3. Agreed. A definition will be provided. The requirement is stipulated in section 46 of O.Reg. 941. The decision was made by PEO’s legislation Committee in 1984 and approved by Council at that time. Licensing allows an individual to practice professional engineering. A certificate of authorization allows a business to provide engineering services to the public and is connected to the requirements for insurance. Unlike other professions, where insurance is held by individual practitioners, in engineering practices engineers are generally employees. It is the business that must bear liabilities and therefore have insurance. Engineers are not asked to act more professionally than other professionals. The duty is to act as accords a profession which according to the rights and privileges provided to a professional has a higher duty than

13

with professional status. " What precisely does "higher duty of care" mean? Perhaps you should give some concretes example of how engineers should act more "professionally" than other professonals. Page 16: a) I can't believe you actually printed the following statement: "Though a practitioner’s 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. I highly recommend that you remove the statement about not providing volunteer services to non-profit groups, etc. It is utterly despicable!

nonprofessionals. A license to practice a profession that is prohibited to others entails a duty to exercise that right with care not required of others. This will be explained in greater detail in the guideline. This, however, is exactly the legal and practical case. It is not appropriate either to the professional who is volunteering or the volunteer organization that the professional provides professional services as part of that volunteer work. When acting on a volunteer organization a professional engineer providing professional engineering services is not immune to liability. Furthermore, if work done for a volunteer organization by a volunteer professional engineer caused damage to a third party the volunteer organization would not have the benefit of professional liability insurance. Nothing prohibits part-time entrepreneurship or moonlighting. However, if done it must be done in accordance with the requirements of professional service. More specifically, the services must be done in accordance with article 77.5, O. Reg. 941/90 which is the PEO Code of Ethics. No one says that a professional should not volunteer. But volunteering to provide professional engineering services puts both the practitioner and the volunteer organization at great risk. Pro bono work must be done

14

within the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act. That is, the professional engineering work must be done by a C of A holding firm preferably a firm carrying professional liability insurance.

Daniel Young, P.Eng. Acting CEO, OSPE

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.

15

To address the changing engineering business, OSPE suggests that PEO add responses in the guideline to deal with the following questions: When an engineer is hired only to review and stamp foreign prepared engineering deliverables for an Ontario facility what duties of care must s/he exercise on behalf of the public as part of that review? When an engineer is supervised by a non-engineer, to what extent can that professional engineer accept direction from that supervisor to change the work of the professional engineer? To what extent can non-engineer supervisors or managers review and approve the engineering work of engineers? When regulatory requirements require independent review and/or approval of specific work documents, do the independent reviewers and approvers require a professional engineering licence? For example the nuclear CSA N286 standards require via the facility holder’s licence to independently review and approve all nuclear safety related work – a current topic of interest as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Specific Comments to Sections: Section 3 - Purpose and Scope of Guideline The document's purpose and scope is unwieldy in its ambition, and is beyond the scope of professional regulation. To suggest a guideline will "inspire a shared vision for the profession", or "promote a common understanding of what it means to be a member of the engineering profession" is beyond the scope of enforceable guideline guidance. OSPE would suggest it would be appropriate that the practice guideline's

Thank you. These concerns have been noted.

16

purpose and scope should emphasize the theme presented in point five: "establish criteria for a consistent quality of work that will maintain public confidence in the profession". Section 4 - Introduction 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. OSPE, therefore, recommends on Page 4, Section 4, 3rd paragraph, to add the 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. Section 5 - Characteristics of a Profession This section speaks about the expectation of practitioners to obtain and "maintain a level of skill and knowledge consistent with the demands of their area of practice". OSPE agrees with this as a tenet of professional self regulation. However, PEO does not have a mandatory professional development or continuing education program, nor does it have a mandatory practice inspection or other similar quality assurance program. The section also suggests that professionals are expected (but not required) to comply with a code of ethics. To truly reflect characteristics of a profession, PEO needs to embed mandatory PD, practice inspection or other similar quality assurance, and have an enforceable code of ethics.

This opinion will be assessed by PEO’s policy department. PEO has and continues to consider the need for mandatory professional development. OSPE comments in this regard will be noted for any future consideration of that policy.

17

Section 6 - The Engineering Profession in Ontario This section is a description of the statutory authority under which engineers are licenced in Ontario. It also serves to highlight the gaps mentioned in the previous point. Licensure, complaints and discipline are components fundamental to a self regulated profession mandated to protect the public from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners. However, self regulated professions have evolved to incorporate other measures meant to ensure standards of practice are met prior to reaching the complaints and discipline stage. Quality assurance measures such as practice inspection and mandatory continued competency are examples of systems that ensure practitioners maintain the standard they were required to have at qualification for licensure, thus minimizing the number of unqualified or incompetent practitioners and therefore reducing the number of complaints against such practitioners. Section 8 - Professional Responsibility This section speaks again to the need for third party assurance of and assessment of competence. It is not enough to suggest that practitioners "must practice within one's competence" without a way to determine whether this is happening other than discipline. Using the threat of a finding of 'incompetence' should be a final means of ensuring competency. Again, continuing quality assurance (through means such as practice inspection), and mandatory continuing professional development requirements would be supportive ways to ensure engineers maintain competency in the areas they practice in.

PEO will continue to evaluate the need for mandatory professional development and practice inspections. As previously noted, PEO will continue to evaluate the need for mandatory professional development and practice inspections.

18

Section 9 - Engineer's Duty to Report - Subsection Whistle-blowing From a practical point of view, engineers are not in a financial position to take on a corporation in a legal dispute. If the P. Eng. resigns, the public safety interest is not satisfied because the employer still proceeds with a risky operation. In these situations, effectively the engineer is charging the company with interfering with the professional engineer’s duties to protect public safety. Could not the PEO Registrar take up the issue with the corporation and if PEO agrees the company is acting irresponsibly, raise the matter before the courts on the public’s behalf as a matter of public safety covered by the P. Eng. Act? OSPE, therefore, submits the following proposal to PEO: Practice advice by PEO is a necessary first step but not a sufficient final step by PEO. The PEO Registrar should pursue enforcement of the provisions of the Professional Engineers Act not only on engineers but also on employers who attempt to muzzle the Act by hiring their own engineers and then refusing to take their advice. PEO should take every opportunity to establish case law that give PEO that power, or lobby government for changes to the Act to give PEO such authority. Section 10.9 - Confidential Information A new area of concern in the technical community is a result of easy to use on-line resources. We often forget to protect the interests of third parties when using those resources. They are not always free of obligations on the part of the user and the penalties, if caught, can be severe (e.g. even loss of you university degree or

This opinion is provided to PEO’s policy department for assessment. Thank you. These concerns have been noted.

19

licence). OSPE, therefore, recommends the following be incorporated into the section: Add a new final paragraph or a separate sub-section dealing with the use of the internet and other electronic media covering plagiarism, copyright, trade secrets and confidentiality requirements especially if using information from an access restricted site in the engineer’s work or documents. OSPE trusts the above will assist PEO in finalizing this important guideline.


476th Meeting of Council – Marc h1-2, 2012 Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

OSPE PARTICIPATION ON THE GOVERNMENT LIAISON COMMITTEE Purpose: To provide a response to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) regarding their participation on the Government Liaison Committee (GLC). Motion to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That Council authorize the CEO/Registrar to send a letter to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE), as shown in C-476-2.2, Appendix B, indicating that the Government Liaison Committee interest is to have OSPE participate as a full member, recognizing the positive contribution of the current member. Prepared by: Jeannette Chau, P.Eng. – Government Liaison Committee staff advisor Motion Sponsor: Chris Taylor, P.Eng. – Government Liaison Committee Council Liaison 1. Need for PEO Action

In a letter from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) dated December 20th, 2011, the Government Liaison Committee (GLC) was informed that OSPE’s participation on the GLC would be, moving forward, as an observer as opposed to being a full member. Mr William Goodings, P.Eng. would continue to be the representative for OSPE. A copy of the letter from OSPE is attached in Appendix A.

2. Proposed Action / Recommendation

That Council authorize the CEO/Registrar to send a letter to OSPE, as per Appendix B, indicating that the Government Liaison Committee interest is to have OSPE participate as a full member, recognizing the positive contribution of the current member, Willliam Goodings, P.Eng., to date.

3. Next Steps (if motion approved)

The letter be sent to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.

4. Appendices

• Appendix A – OPSE’s letter to Chair, Government Liaison Committee • Appendix B – draft of letter to OSPE

C-476-2.2

AElliot

Text Box


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, David Adams, P.Eng., FEC President




ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE - EMERGING ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES Purpose: To establish a permanent committee for Emerging Engineering Disciplines Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That Council establish a permanent Emerging Engineering Disciplines Committee with the following mandate:

To identify potential new engineering disciplines, to determine whether they meet the definition of professional engineering in accordance with section 1 of the Professional Engineers Act, and if so, to guide the process for regulation of the new discipline(s).

Prepared by: Peter M DeVita, P.Eng., Chair, Emerging Disciplines Task Force, George Comrie, P.Eng., (CIE subgroup chair) and Argyrios Margaritis, PhD., P.Eng, (NME subgroup chair)

1. Need for PEO Action

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 sub-variations. 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 PEO’s 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 1900’s to years in the 2000’s. 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.

C-476-2.3

of 6

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.


The motion outlines the key functions of this committee. 3. Next Steps (if motion approved)

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. PEO’s 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

Outline the Policy Development Process followed. • Proposal initiated by Emerging Disciplines Task Force; reviewed CEQB’s

Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice 2011 Report


Identify who is to be consulted; how they will be consulted and what kind of response is expected. • Awaiting Council direction


Detail peer review and relevant stakeholder review undertaken Motion to be presented to Council at this meeting; reviewed by Council Liaison. Comments received from Engineers Canada (Chantal Guay) were incorporated into sub-item 4. (“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

of 6

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.”)

5. Appendices

• Appendix A – Memo from Chantal Guay, P.Eng., CEO, Engineers Canada • Appendix B – Draft EEDC Terms of Reference • Appendix C – Engineers Canada Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice Report

August 12, 2011

of 6

Appendix A – Memo from Chantal Guay, P.Eng., CEO, Engineers Canada From: "Chantal Guay" <[email protected]> To: "Peter M DeVita - rogers" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: "Kim Allen" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Ken McMartin" <[email protected]>; "Stephanie Price" <[email protected]>; "Alana Lavoie" <[email protected]> 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


of 6

report on Communications Infrastructure Engineering was recently used as an Expert Opinion Paper and formed the basis for the Qualification Board's decision to recognize this field. The process of moving from identifying an emerging area of professional engineering practice to recognizing one is accomplished with support from Engineers Canada's Research Department, which produces a Report on Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice every two years. This report is submitted to the Qualifications Board for their consideration. Upon receiving the report, the Qualifications Board strikes an Emerging Areas Task Force to study it in more depth. Members of the Task Force typically include Qualifications Board members, but may also include members of the Accreditation Board, or representative of the constituent associations. The Task Force has a mandate to review the report and make a recommendation to the Qualifications Board on whether each area should be: a) Further investigated, as it appears to constitute the practice of professional engineering 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 * Definition (and distinction from other similar fields, if applicable) * Purpose of work done in this field * Situation in Canada o Education o Research

of 6

o Commercial implications * Current regulation (if applicable) * Professional practice / the role of professional engineers in this field * Public safety * Future outlook (jobs, industry growth, etc.) 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.

Terms of Reference Emerging Engineering Disciplines Committee (EEDC)

Issue Date: Review Date: January 1, 20xx Approved by: Review by: Council

Legislated and other Mandate approved by Council

To identify potential new engineering disciplines, to determine whether they meet the definition of professional engineering in accordance with section 1 of the Professional Engineers Act, and if so, to guide the process for regulation of the new discipline(s)

Key Duties and Responsibilities

1. Maintain a continuous horizon watch for new and emerging areas of engineering practice that may fall within PEO's legislated mandate to regulate the practice of professional engineering.

2. With approval of Council, establish working groups (sub-committees or task groups) of specialists as necessary to investigate and report on new areas of engineering practice that appear to fall within PEO's regulatory mandate by virtue of a demonstrable need to protect the public interest.

3. Deal with general philosophical question of how to cope with/resolve the growth issues in the number of new disciplines, bringing to Council recommendations on possible new governing structures and their implications;

4. Advise Council on what to do about "emerged" disciplines that are in common practice today but may have limited or even no rights to practice associated with them.

5. Establish and maintain documentation on processes and best practices for assessing emerging and emerged disciplines and for establishing appropriate regulatory environments for them.

6. Maintain dialogue with Engineers Canada and its Constituent Associations and boards (CEAB and CEQB) on issues related to emerging engineering disciplines.

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

Extensive knowledge of PEO’s regulatory processes acquired through volunteering on ARC, ERC, ENF, REC, PSC or other PEO regulatory committee


the Chair Broad knowledge of engineering practices, including engineering research, design, development, and teaching.

Election method to be determined by the committee and presented to Council for approval

Qualifications and election of the Vice Chair(s)

Knowledge of PEO’s regulatory processes

Knowledge of engineering practices, and engineering research, design, development and practices.

Election method to be determined by the committee and presented to Council for approval

Duties of Vice Chair(s)

To chair meetings of the main Committee in the chair’s absence, and to provide orientation and training for new members.

To chair meetings of their respective working/task groups.

Term Limits for Committee members

A term on this Committee is three (3) years. A member may be re-appointed to an additional second term. There must be at least one year gap before coming back for additional appointments to this committee.

Quorum

Following the spirit of Wainberg’s Society Meetings Including Rules of Order and section 25(i) of By-Law No. 1, Quorum of the main Committee is 5 members or 50% of the Main Committee, whichever is less.

Task Force decisions are not binding on the Main Committee and require approval of the Main Committee for taking actions such as advising Council.

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

To be determined by the Registrar

Supplementary Notes and Guidelines:

Examples of horizon scanning includes but is not limited to activities that involve scans of applied scientific research, industrial developments, new academic programs, and regulations and standards activities to identify new scopes of professional engineering practice.

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.

Engineers Canada Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice

Report

August 12, 2011

aelliot

Text Box

C-476-2.3 Appendix C

Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice Page 2 of 17 August 12, 2011

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………….… 5

II. Financial Engineering………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

III. Energy Engineering and Sustainability Engineering…………………………………………………………………. 7

IV. Management Engineering………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 V. Information Systems Security Engineering ……………………………………………………………………….……. 10

VI. Clinical Engineering………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

VII. Architectural Engineering………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

VIII. Climate Engineering/Geo-Engineering……………………………………………………………………………………. 14

IX. Pharmaceutical Engineering…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

X. Survey of the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science…………………………. 16


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 master’s 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 world’s 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_engineering�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_engineering�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction�


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 year’s review.


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 year’s 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 year’s 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. II. Financial Engineering Introduction Financial engineering is considered by some sources to be one of the fastest growing areas of applied mathematics.2

However, most of the financial engineering courses or programs offered at Canadian universities are located outside of engineering within the universities’ management or business faculties. Programs in this field deal primarily with risk management of financial markets, and are marketed to students with strong quantitative backgrounds in economics, mathematics, statistics, computer science, science, and engineering.

Definition 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. It is designed for students who wish to obtain positions in the securities, banking, and financial management and consulting industries, or as quantitative analysts in corporate treasury and financial departments of general manufacturing and service firms.3

By applying engineering methodologies to problems in finance, and employing financial theory and applied mathematics, as well as computation and the practice of programming, financial engineering aims to precisely control the financial risk that an entity takes on. Financial engineering is normally employed in the securities and banking industries. It is also used by quantitative analysts in consulting firms or in general manufacturing and service firms, in corporate treasury, corporate finance and risk management roles. Financial engineering degrees or diplomas are often associated with master’s level education, such as a Master of Financial Engineering.

1 http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Policy_EmergTech.pdf. 2 http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca/ 3 www.ieor.columbia.edu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Problem_solving�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_economics�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_analyst�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulting_firm�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_finance�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management�

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Policy_EmergTech.pdf�

http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca/�

http://www.ieor.columbia.edu/�


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

4 www.yorku.ca/fineng/home/home.html 5 http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca 6 http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2011-2012/pg2769.html 7 http://www.discover.engineering.utoronto.ca/programs/academic-programs/engineering-science.htm 8 http://engsci.utoronto.ca/explore_our_program/majors/math_stats_and_finance/finance_courses.htm

http://www.math.yorku.ca/�

http://www.math.yorku.ca/�

http://www.yorku.ca/grads/�

http://www.schulich.yorku.ca/�

http://www.yorku.ca/fineng/group2/diploma.html�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_engineering�

http://www.yorku.ca/fineng/home/home.html�

http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca/�

http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2011-2012/pg2769.html�

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�


world”.9 Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology In the United States, the (ABET) does not accredit financial engineering degrees. III. Energy Engineering and Sustainability Engineering Introduction The principles of sustainable development are concerned with improving the quality of life for everyone without using more resources than the environment can supply.10 From this it is easy to understand why the fields of energy engineering and sustainability engineering have become very closely connected. While programs in sustainability engineering can be focused on resources and processes other than energy (like food, water, transportation, and ecosystems), programs in energy engineering are increasingly focused on developing sustainable energy systems. Green engineering (with a focus on environmental consequences) is another name used in relation to these areas, however, the term sustainability appears to be growing in use, and is now the more commonly used title for engineering programs in these fields.

11,12

Definition Energy engineering deals with all aspects of energy, from its generation to its end use, and includes energy conversion, storage, transportation, and distribution. It is a growing multi-disciplinary field that draws on multiple existing engineering disciplines including chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and materials engineering. In addition to the traditional, non-renewable energy sources, increasing attention is also being given to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass power. Sustainability engineering is concerned with the responsible use of the world’s finite natural resources in a manner which will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It involves using methods that minimize environmental damage, designing products and process so that the wastes from one are used as inputs to another, and it incorporates environmental, social, and economic considerations into engineering problem-solving and decision-making.13

Situation Universities across Canada have reported planned or current expansions in energy engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Many universities have also reported that sustainability has become a key factor in all of their engineering programs as they shift to integration of sustainability practices and concepts throughout the curriculum. Carleton University offers a program in Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering.14

Stream A: Smart Technologies for Power Generation and Distribution

The program aims to provide the analytical, technical and marketing skills needed to design, build, operate and enhance sustainable energy systems, and there are two streams to the program:

Stream B: Efficient Energy Generation and Conversion

9 http://www.benefitscanada.com/investments/global-investments/financial-engineering-can-cause-more-harm-than-untested-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/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accreditation_Board_for_Engineering_and_Technology�

http://www.benefitscanada.com/investments/global-investments/financial-engineering-can-cause-more-harm-than-untested-medicines-344�

http://www.benefitscanada.com/investments/global-investments/financial-engineering-can-cause-more-harm-than-untested-medicines-344�

http://sdgateway,net/introsd/definitions.htm�

http://interestingenergyfacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/sustainable-energy-and-sustainable.html�

http://www.csengin.org/�

http://www1.carleton.ca/admissions/programs/sustainable-and-renewable-energy/�


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 program’s objectives are to teach students the skills they will need to design and develop tomorrow’s 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 Master’s 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 multi-disciplinary 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.

15 www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/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

http://www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf�


https://connect.uoit.ca/uoit/program.do?from=subject&programID=48�

http://www.queensu.ca/sgs/program/engineering-sciences/applied-sustainability.html�

http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/Programs/Minors_Certificates/Engineering_Minors_Certificates.htm�

http://www.csengin.org/csengine�


IV. Management Engineering Introduction Management engineering refers to ways of taking the disciplines, practices, and processes of engineering and transferring them to the business management process. Management engineers design and implement complex management systems in organizations. Their work aims to improve efficiency, reduce cost, and improve the quality of deliverables in a variety of industries such as manufacturing, telecommunications, banks, and health care. Management engineering attempts to apply practices that are standard in other engineering fields (such as measurements, testing, feedback, control loops, work breakdown structures, and risk mitigation) and apply them appropriately to a business.20

Definition Management engineering or engineering management (both titles have been used to describe the same field of study) is a branch of engineering that focuses on optimizing complex processes or systems. It is concerned with the development, improvement, implementation and evaluation of integrated systems of people, money, knowledge, information, equipment, energy, materials and/or processes. Management engineering draws upon the principles and methods of engineering analysis and synthesis, as well as the mathematical, physical and social sciences together with the principles and methods of engineering design to specify, predict, and evaluate the results to be obtained from such systems or processes. Situation The University of Waterloo offers a four-year undergraduate program in management engineering administered by the Department of Management Sciences, in the Faculty of Engineering. The university considers it to be a contemporary version of the traditional industrial engineering program and its goal is to provide students with the skills needed to design and develop information systems for implementing new business processes. 21

In the United States, most engineering management programs are geared for graduate studies, however, there are a few institutions that teach engineering management at the undergraduate level, including the WestPoint Military Academy, and George Washington University. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, the combination of management and engineering is also being offered at the graduate level at various Canadian institutions. Supervised by the Faculty of Engineering and the Tefler School of Management, the University of Ottawa offers a Master of Engineering in engineering management. The objective of this course is to develop the knowledge and skills of engineers and scientists in the management of people, projects, resources and organizations in technical environments.22

The University of British Columbia offers the engineering management program as a sub-specialization intended for engineering graduates moving on to graduate studies, as well as for the practising engineer who wishes to acquire more advanced knowledge and skills to effectively manage engineering and technical enterprises in existing or new businesses and industries.23

20 http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx 21 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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences�

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx�

http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/admissions/Admissions/documents/Engineering_pdf_2010FINAL.pdf�

http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/students/academic-programs/interdisciplinary-programs�

http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/current_students/graduate/EMS/index.php�


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

V. Information Systems Security Engineering Introduction Information systems security engineering involves designing systems to secure and protect information. From classified government data to financial transactions, from personal information to internet activity, society’s increasing need for, and use of, facts and figures has raised the importance of effective protection of stored information. In recent years, the demand for secure systems has increased with the rise in importance of electronic storage. Information systems security engineering is the process used to discover and meet the protection needs of these systems.28

Definition Information systems security engineering is defined as applied systems engineering with an emphasis on information security. Its aim is to develop software solutions that are capable of protecting information placed on a system. To satisfy user concerns and deliver quality results, it is important to incorporate information systems security engineering as an integral part of the more general systems engineering development and design process.29

Situation The Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering at Concordia University is an interdisciplinary, research, development, and learning institute, that includes research in information systems security engineering. The institute offers a graduate program at the master’s level in information systems security which is said to provide students with the skills, knowledge, technologies, expertise and best practices needed to be security architects capable of designing, implementing, analyzing and managing the security of real-life information systems.30

24

http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/graduate/mem/ 25 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/

http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/graduate/mem/�

http://www.engr.mun.ca/graduate/course/mem.php�

http://www.csem-scgi.org/about.html�

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx�

http://www.sse-cmm.org/docs/ssecmmv3final.pdf�

http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentCon.jsp?punumber=5881�

http://www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentCon.jsp?punumber=5881�

http://www.ciise.concordia.ca/�


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. VI. Clinical Engineering Introduction 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. In fact, it would seem that some hospitals use the terms “clinical engineering” and “biomedical engineering” interchangeably as they appear to refer to the same type of department in different institutions. While the term “biomedical engineer” is more all-encompassing, and includes engineers who work in the primary design of medical devices, research and development, and academia, the term “clinical engineer” is more commonly reserved for those who work in hospitals solving problems that are very close to where equipment is actually used in a patient care setting. Definition The American College of Clinical Engineering defines a clinical engineer as a professional who supports and advances patient care by applying engineering and management skills to healthcare technology.33

Clinical engineering education is based in classical engineering, but also includes instruction in physiology, human factors, systems analysis, medical terminology, measurement, and instrumentation.

Situation Clinical engineering does not exist as an undergraduate program in Canadian universities, however, undergraduate programs involving biomedical engineering are available through Carleton University, McMaster University, and the University of Ottawa.

31 https://www.isc2.org/issep.aspx 32 http://gsya.esi.uclm.es/Wisse2011/CFP_WISSE2011.pdf 33 http://accenet.org/default.asp?page=about&section=definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_engineering�

https://www.isc2.org/issep.aspx�

http://gsya.esi.uclm.es/Wisse2011/CFP_WISSE2011.pdf�

http://accenet.org/default.asp?page=about&section=definition�


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 Toronto’s 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. VII. Architectural Engineering Introduction The field of architecture is typically involved with designing the look or aesthetics of a building. Architectural engineering takes that design and develops the details of the building system; it is the application of engineering principles and technology to building design and construction. Architectural engineering is a multi-disciplinary field that includes training in architecture and involves the integration of other engineering disciplines like mechanical, structural, civil, electrical, and construction engineering. Architectural engineers use their expertise in engineering, mathematics, and physics to make sure the structure is sound and functional.37

While architectural engineering programs are more common in the United States, comparable programs in Canada tend to use the term building engineering, which is a recognized discipline with an existing syllabus.

Definition Architectural engineering is a field that is involved in the design, planning, and construction of the various systems within a building, structure, or complex. Architectural engineers focus several areas, including the structural integrity of buildings, the design and analysis of heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems, the efficiency and design of plumbing, fire protection and electrical systems, acoustic and lighting planning, architectural acoustics, structural systems, and energy conservation issues. In some university programs,

34 http://www.sce.carleton.ca/courses/courseOutlines/Winter/SYSC4202_W11.pdf 35 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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_acoustics�

http://www.sce.carleton.ca/courses/courseOutlines/Winter/SYSC4202_W11.pdf�

http://ibbme.utoronto.ca/pro/clinicaleng/overview.htm�

http://www.cmbes.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=212�

http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf�


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. Concordia’s 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 Génie de la construction is also offered through l’École de technologie supérieure 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 39 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/ccms-files/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf 42 http://www.engr.mun.ca/programs/undergraduate/ocean_naval/

http://www.bcee.concordia.ca/index.php/Programs�

http://www.bcee.concordia.ca/index.php/Building_Engineering�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Engineering�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_air_quality�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Project_management�


http://www.bcee.concordia.ca/index.php/Building_Engineering�

http://www.etsmtl.ca/Programmes-Etudes/1er-cycle/Bac/7921�



http://www.engr.mun.ca/programs/undergraduate/ocean_naval/�


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. VIII. Climate Engineering/Geo-Engineering Introduction A relatively new field that is commonly referred to as climate engineering or geo-engineering is experiencing a surge of interest as researchers point to the possibility that tipping points in the Earth's climate system are close at hand. The modern concept of climate engineering or geo-engineering proposes to deliberately manipulate a planet's climate, typically the Earth's, to counteract the effects of such problems as global warming resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. Organizations like NASA44 and the Royal Society of the United Kingdom45 have investigated climate engineering/geo-engineering to discuss current knowledge on the subject and evaluate its potential.46

Definition 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. Broadly-speaking, climate engineering strategies that have received recent attention include 1) solar radiation management which seeks to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the planet by reflecting it back to space, thereby reducing atmospheric warming; 2) greenhouse gas remediation which seeks to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming; 3) arctic geo-engineering which seeks to change the climate by limiting arctic sea ice loss without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation; and 4) weather modification which seeks to alter weather patterns and conditions, thereby reducing, disrupting, or redirecting hurricanes, or seeding clouds for rainfall in drying regions.47,48

Situation There are no programs in climate engineering or geo-engineering currently in existence in North America.

43 http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf 44 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation�


http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf�

http://royalsociety.org/Stop-emitting-CO2-or-geoengineering-could-be-our-only-hope/�

http://library.trocaire.edu/pdf/news/Climate.pdf�

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3443/�

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768�

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768�


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. IX. Pharmaceutical Engineering Introduction The pharmaceutical industry develops, produces, and markets drugs and biologics, as well as medical devices and other pharmaceuticals, therapies, and processes dedicated to improving the health and well being of society. A variety of laws and regulations regarding the patenting, testing, safety, and efficacy of these products govern the industry in order to ensure public protection.50 Pharmaceutical engineering links the problem-solving principles and quantitative training of engineering to the other scientific fields that are already involved in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical engineers contribute to improving the health and well being of society through the development, large-scale production, packaging, and delivery of these health-care products.51

Definition Pharmaceutical engineering spans a wide range of activities within the pharmaceutical industry. While this field 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, 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.52 Pharmaceutical engineers participate in interdisciplinary teams to address a variety of tasks that can include the discovery of new pharmaceutical compounds for development; the design and implementation of economically viable manufacturing processes to produce safe and effective pharmaceutical compounds; and the creation of new systems to deliver the correct dosage of pharmaceutical products for specific conditions.53

Situation Relatively few academic programs with an explicit focus in pharmaceutical engineering currently exist, and none have been identified in Canada. Because such programs are not yet common, many pharmaceutical engineers receive their formal engineering training through chemical engineering or biomedical engineering programs. The pharmaceutical engineering programs that have been identified in North America are typically offered at the graduate level.

49 http://scpd.stanford.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=8984957 50 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/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug�

http://scpd.stanford.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=8984957�

http://www.lsu.edu/studentorgs/ispe/Welcome_files/PHARMACEUTICAL%20ENGINEERING.pdf�

http://chemeng.adelaide.edu.au/programs/pharmaceutical/about/�


In Canada, the École Polytechnique de Montréal 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 Engineering55

Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering

, and Rutgers University offers graduate-level programs in pharmaceutical engineering at both the master’s and doctorate levels, administered by their

.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 Engineering57

, founded in 1980, provides some evidence that this discipline may continue to grow in the coming years.

X. Survey of the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science As part of the research for this project, an email survey of Canadian universities was conducted in June 2011 through the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science. This survey consisted of three questions regarding potential developments in their engineering departments, namely: 1. Are there any program changes being planned because of new developments in technology and science? 2. Has there been any discussion or action regarding implementing new programs, even if only being initially

considered or assessed? 3. Are there any new areas of science and technology that you foresee will have a significant effect on the

future direction of engineering at your university? In addition to those areas already covered in this report, other areas that were identified and examined as part of this year’s scan included:

• antibody engineering • educational engineering • vaccine engineering • labour market engineering • production engineering

54 http://catalog.njit.edu/graduate/programs/pharmaceuticaleng.php 55 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

http://pharmeng.rutgers.edu/�

http://catalog.njit.edu/graduate/programs/pharmaceuticaleng.php�

http://pharmacy.umich.edu/pharmacy/master_of_engineering_-_pharmaceutical_engineering�

http://pharmeng.rutgers.edu/�

http://www.ispe.org/cs/about_ispe_section/overview�


• 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 Canada’s Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice Report.



CANADIAN FRAMEWORK FOR LICENSURE Purpose: To consider Council concurrence of policy direction and key considerations for the first three Canadian Framework for Licensure (CFL) elements. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)

That Council concurs with the policy direction and key considerations for inclusion as elements of the Canadian Framework for Licensure elements:

1. Accountability of Engineering Organizations as set out in Appendix C-476-2.4, Appendix C(i);

2. Continuing Professional Development as set out in Appendix C-476-2.4, Appendix D(i);

3. Negotiating International Recognition Agreements as set out in Appendix C-476-2.4, Appendix E(i)

Prepared by: Diane Freeman, P.Eng. – Chair National Framework Task Force 1. Need for PEO Action

PEO’s 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 NFTF’s 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.

C-476-2.4

2 | P a g e

3. Next Steps (if motion approved) 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

PEO Peer Review

Accountability of Engineering Organizations

Enforcement Committee

Continuing Professional Development Experience Requirement Committee – sub committee

Negotiating International Recognition Agreements

Negotiating International Recognition Agreements

5. Appendices

Appendix A Canadian Framework for Licensure – Overview

Appendix B Canadian Framework for Licensure – Status Report

Appendix C(i) Accountability of Engineering Organizations – Policy Direction and Key Considerations

Appendix C(ii) Accountability of Engineering Organizations – Research

Appendix D(i) Continuing Professional Development – Policy Direction and Key Considerations

Appendix D(i) Continuing Professional Development – Research

Appendix E(i) Negotiating International Recognition Agreements– Policy Direction and Key Considerations

Appendix E(i) Negotiating International Recognition Agreements– Research

1 | P a g e

CANADIAN FRAMEWORK FOR LICENSURE

Covering Page The Canadian Framework for Licensure is a dynamic model for all Canadian engineering regulators to enhance their ability to regulate the practice of professional engineering to better serve and protect the public interest. The Canadian Framework for Licensure will develop foundational documents to help engineering regulators across Canada improve their legislative framework to enhance equity, consistency, fairness and timeliness of services. These changes will result in enhanced national and international mobility through uniform qualifications recognition, admissions, and discipline and enforcement procedures. The Canadian Framework for Licensure focuses on the essential elements of the regulated engineering profession in Canada (“the elements”) and develops key considerations and supporting implementation details for each one. These elements will form a national framework which is available for the engineering regulators to amend legislation or make changes to bylaws or regulations. The key considerations and implementation details will be developed collaboratively by the engineering regulators with extensive consultation to identify best practices for use by the engineering regulators. The Canadian Framework for Licensure will allow our governments and the engineering regulators to develop and implement their shared vision for the 21st century.

KAllen

Text Box


Canadian Framework for Licensure Element Creation, Design and Development

The design process involves feedback loops at all stages. * at any point, receipt of new information or changing circumstances could re-start the process.

Start *

Process for the Development of each Element

of the Canadian Framework for Licensure

Input Details Output Facilitated By

Research A framework element

Summarize the current practices/legislation of the engineering regulators and others

Identify promising practices

Summary with supporting research

Engineers Canada

Development Summary with supporting research

Develop consultation document with a purpose statement, preliminary key considerations and supporting research

Consultation document CEO Group

Consultation Consultation document

Consult with stakeholders through the Constituent Associations

Engineers Canada summarizes input

Engineers Canada refines the consultation document

New information may require re-starting the process

Draft purpose statement and key considerations

Constituent Associations and Engineers Canada

Analysis Draft purpose statement and key considerations

Review feedback from consultation

Confirm key considerations

Develop proposed policy direction

Confirmed key considerations and proposed policy direction

CEO Group

Approval Confirmed key considerations and proposed policy direction

Consider the key considerations and proposed policy direction

If consensus1

Approved key considerations and proposed policy direction

is not achieved, the process can be re-started

Constituent Associations

Endorsement Approved principles and supporting details

Endorse the key considerations and proposed policy direction for inclusion as part of the Canadian Framework for Licensure

Element of the Canadian Framework for Licensure

Engineers Canada Board of Directors

Implementation Element of the Canadian Framework for Licensure

Engineers Canada develops a guideline to support implementation of the element

Constituent Associations adopt and implement the element

Enhanced regulatory abilities

Engineers Canada


1 Consensus will be based on Engineers Canada’s voting procedures for the meeting of members (2/3 of the Members representing at least 60% of the Registrants)


Att 5.10.1c_CFL Status Report.docx Page 1 of 3

STATUS REPORT February 1, 2012

The following is a list of Canadian Framework for Licensure elements – both those that are in progress as well as those that are currently foreseen, with an estimated timetable.

List of Elements with Target / Completion Dates

Research Development Consultation CEO Analysis CA Concur. Endorse Implement

(planned) (CEO review) Due Date

Target Target Continuing Professional Development

Jan 2011 Feb 23 2011 June 18 ’11 July 13 2011 Oct 2011 Feb 2012


Feb 2011 Feb 23 2011 June 18 ’11 July 13 2011 Nov 2011 Feb 2012

Negotiating International Agreements

Feb 2011 Feb 23 2011 June 18 ’11 July 13 2011 Dec 2011 Feb 2012

Fairness & Service Level Norms May 2011 July 13 2011 Nov 30 2011 Feb 22 2012 June 2012 Licensing Requirements and Competencies – Lim. Licence

Sept 2011 Oct 3 2011 Feb 1 2012 Feb 22 2012 June 2012

Licensing Requirements and Competencies - the P.Eng.

Sept 2011 Oct 3 2011 Feb 1 2012 Feb 22 2012 June 2012

Licensing Requirements and Competencies - EITs

Jan 2012 Feb 22 2012

Licensing Requirements and Competencies - Provisional

Jan 2012 May 2012

Licensing Requirements and Competencies - Temporary

Feb 2012 May 2012

Discipline - "portability" Feb 2012 May 2012

Discipline - "jurisdiction" Mar 2012 May 2012

Membership vs. licensure Apr 2012 July 2012 Definition of the practice of professional engineering

May 2012 July 2012

Complaints June 2012 Oct 2012

Discipline process July 2012 Oct 2012

Enforcement Aug 2012 Oct 2012

Fee Setting Power Sept 2012 Feb 2013 Relationships with Other Professions

Oct 2012 Feb 2013

Governance Nov 2012 Feb 2013

Objects of the Engineering Act Dec 2012 Feb 2013 Licensure - acceptable forms of identification

Jan 2013 May 2013

KAllen

Text Box




Research Development Consultation CEO Analysis CA Concur. Endorse Implement

(planned) (CEO review) Due Date

Target Target Insurance requirement for engineers

Jan 2013 May 2013

Licensing other - classes, life members, reduced fees, etc.

Jan 2013 May 2013

Discipline and inter-association applicants

Feb 2013 May 2013

Disclosure of information in the public interest (disicpline)

Mar 2013 May 2013

Step 3 – Constituent Association Consultation – Number Reporting The following constituent associations have offered comments to the elements:


CFL Element # % Reg NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YK NW

Continuing Professional Development 12 100.0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Accountability of Engineering Organizations 12 100.0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Negotiating International Agreements 12 100.0% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fairness & Service Level Norms 6 59.5% 1 1 1 1 1 1

Licensing Requirements and Comp. - Limited Licence 2 4.3% 1 1

Licensing Requirements and Competencies - P.Eng. 2 4.3% 1 1



Step 5 – Constituent Association Concurrence / Approval – Number Reporting

The following table shows the number of constituent associations who have endorsed, approved, or concurred with the Key Considerations of each element.


CFL Element # % Reg NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YK NW

Continuing Professional Development 9 65.1% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Accountability of Engineering Organizations 8 64.7% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Negotiating International Agreements 9 65.1% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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:


CFL Element

NL NS PE NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YK NW

Continuing Professional Development

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

1 1 1

Negotiating International Agreements

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

Step 6 – Endorsement by the Board of Engineers Canada The first three elements will therefore be presented for endorsement by the Board of Engineers Canada on February 24, 2012. Updates on Implementation will follow after that.

CCAANNAADDIIAANN FFRRAAMMEEWWOORRKK FFOORR LLIICCEENNSSUURREE

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.

Element: Accountability of Engineering Organizations

Step #: 6. Endorsement by the Engineers Canada Board

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.

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix C(i)


Corporate Registration Guiding Principles and Research.doc Page 1 of 7

Corporate Registration

Research Current Situation within Engineering Associations in Canada

Name Details

APEGBC n/a APEGGA Permit to

Practice • Any company, partnership, or corporation practising professional engineering

(regardless of whether offering to the public or not) • Applies to companies even if one engineer only, sole proprietors, etc. • Permit holders must follow a professional management plan • Permit holders must attend a seminar every 5 years • Permit number must be displayed on all stamped documents • $427.50 to apply and per year. Reduced fees for companies with only one

P.Eng. and revenues less than $250,000/yr APEGS Certificate of

Authorization • All partnerships, associations of persons or corporations practising

professional engineering (regardless of whether offering to the public or not) • Applies to all companies, even if one licence holder • Does not apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity) • Seal must be signed by self-declared competent person from each discipline • $800 per year. Reduced fees for companies with 5 or less licence holders

APEGM Certificate of Authorization

• Any corporation, partnership or other legal entity providing engineering services to the public

• Does not apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity) • Corporate seal must be signed by the Responsible Member • $346 per year. Reduced fees for sole practitioners (one P.Eng. only)

PEO Certificate of Authorization

• To allow individuals and business entities to provide professional engineering services to the public

• C of A holder must designate at least one professional engineer to assume professional responsibility for the services provided

• $372.90 per year, plus an initial application fee of $372.90 • Regulations in development to increase to $220 + $40 per license holder

providing services to the public • New regulations will require them to identify all license holders and identify

those providing services to the public OIQ n/a

APEGNB Certificate of Authorization

• All partnerships, associations of persons or corporations providing professional services to the public

• Does not apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity) • Must list all engineers working at the company • $280.01 to apply and per year. Double ($560.02/yr) for non-resident

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix C(ii)



Engineers Nova Scotia

Certificate of Compliance

• Partnerships, associations or corporations offering services to the public • Applies to sole practitioners, called “Sole Practitioner Compliance” • Must list all engineers working at the company and all directors/officers • $345.00 per year. Reduced to $57.50 for Sole Practitioner Compliance

Engineers PEI

Certificate of Authorization

• Any partnership, association of persons or corporation practising professional engineering (regardless of whether offering to the public or not)

• Does not apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity) • Must designate a responsible individual who is a member of the association • $150.00 per year.

PEGNL Permit to Practice

• Sole proprietorships, partnerships, associations or corporations providing professional services to the public

• Required for all – including individuals doing contract work • Must designate an engineer “in responsible charge” for each discipline, and

demonstrate how they are qualified to have this position. This person must be an employer, principal or proprietor of the company. One such person required per site

• $ 637.32 per year for 1 discipline • $ 863.32 per year for 2 disciplines • $1,165.03 per year for 3 or more disciplines • $ 248.60 application fee

APEY Permit to Practice

• Partnership, corporation, firm or association of persons practising engineering (regardless of size of organization and regardless of whether offering to the public or only internal)

• Does apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity), but do not charge them

• A Responsible Member (or Members, for larger organizations) must be designated on the Permit to Practice. This person must be a partner or full-time employee of the company

• Permit Stamp and Permit Number must appear on all documentation, along with the signature of the Responsible Member(s)

• $252.00 per year, and $78.75 application fee, and $47.25 stamp fee. Fees and dues are waived if the company has only one engineer (but Permit still req’d)

NAPEG Permit to Practice

• Partnership, corporation, firm or association of persons practising engineering (regardless of size of organization and regardless of whether offering to the public or only internal)

• Does not apply to sole proprietorships (i.e. not an incorporated entity) • A Responsible Member (or Members, for larger organizations) must be

designated on the Permit to Practice. This person must be a partner or full-time employee of the company

• Permit Stamp and Permit Number must appear on all documentation, along with the signature of the Responsible Member(s)

• $409.50 per year, and $367.50 application fee, and $42.00 stamp fee.



Situation in Engineering Worldwide • 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)

Situation in Other Professions in Canada • 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.

Other Pertinent Information • 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.

http://www.apecengineer.org.tw/�

http://www.kpea.or.kr/�

http://www.iem.org.my/�

http://www.ies.org.sg/�

http://www.iesl.lk/�



• 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.

Anticipated outcomes of implementing the principles: • Better protection of the public through the registration of organizations engaging in engineering

activities. • Provide clarity for organizations engaging in engineering activities across Canada.



APPENDIX A

Research Details

Medical Services • Under the Health Professions Act of BC, permits must be obtained in order to operate a health

profession corporation, and non-hospital medicinal and surgical facilities, and diagnostic facilities must also be accredited (maximum period = 4 years)

• New Brunswick: a corporation can be registered with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of NB. This involves a brief application process and registration fee of $100 to obtain a licence (+annual fee of $100/yr). Upon registration, the College advises Medicare that the Corporation is licensed to practice medicine and the corporation can use the designation P.C. – Professional Corporation. A corporation must comply with the Medical Act to maintain the licence (only requirements are in regards to who can be directors)

• AB same ideas as NB, but cost is $350/member for application and then $120/yr • SK same idea as NB, but cost is $350 to apply and then $100/yr • MB the same, but cost is $250 to apply and then $125/yr (use term “medical corporation”) • Under the Independent Health Facilities Act of Ontario, facilities offering services which are paid for

by the provincial government’s Ontario Health Insurance Plan must be licensed and must take part in a Quality Assurance program

• NS also has provision to register corporations • NL is the same, but cost is $450 to apply and then $150/year Veterinarians • College of Veterinarians of BC (CVBC) inspects and accredits • AB.VMA registers and inspects • SVMA registers and inspects • MVMA inspects • CVO inspects and accredits veterinary facilities • NBVMA inspects • NSVMA registers and inspects • PEIVMA inspects Chartered Accountants • In all provinces, licensure applies to firms offering services to the public, must have insurance, and

must abide by rules of conduct for firms • BC – must register at $250/evaluation, $100/yr practice fee, dues based on # of CA’s:

o $470/one partner o $455 per addition partner o $4,300 for 10-15 partners (flat fee) o $285/partner for over 15 partners, AND



o $160/CA member employed ($195 each for CGA/CMA, or international accounting designation)

• BC Bylaw 617: “Every licensed firm, by having authorised a member to bring an application on its behalf for issuance or renewal of its licence, and by the continuance of that licence, agrees and is deemed to have agreed with the Institute and each of its members to be bound by the terms contained in these Bylaws, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Regulations.”

• BC Bylaw 645 “Council shall designate practice review officers… who shall… be authorised (i) to inspect the professional practice of a member or licensed firm and to report their findings and suggested recommendations”

• Alberta registers @ $300/application + dues of ??/yr and does practice reviews • SK registers and inspects • Manitoba registers and inspects, with cost of only $26.25/application • ON registers and inspects - $180/application + $124/yr + $190/hr for inspections • ON Bylaw 510(7): The professional conduct committee may lay a charge against a firm alleging,

that (a) the firm has policies or procedures which are inconsistent with the rules of professional conduct; (b) the breach of a rule by a member, student or employee of the firm is related to the absence of quality control procedures or the existence of quality control procedures that are inadequate for the type of practice in which the firm is engaged; (c) the firm is identified with conduct or the provision of professional services that appears to breach the rules of professional conduct and no member or student of the firm who is responsible for the apparent breach can be determined, (d) the conduct that breaches the rules of professional was authorized, initiated, implemented or condoned by the firm prior to or at the time such conduct takes place; (e) the conduct that breaches the rules of professional conduct is condoned or concealed by the firm after the firm learns of it; (f) the firm did not take appropriate action in response to becoming aware of any conduct that breaches the rules of professional conduct; (g) there are repeated complaints that members, students or employees of the firm have breached the rules.

• Quebec inspects • NB registers and inspects - $150/application + $100/yr • NS registers @ $172/application • PEI inspects and registers@ $85/application, • NL registers and inspects 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)



• 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)



Element: Continuing Professional Development


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.

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix D(i)


CPD Guiding Principles and Research.doc Page 1 of 4

Continuing Professional Development

Research Current Situation within Engineering Associations in Canada

MANDATORY Requirements Hours Audits? Penalties Exemptions

APEGGA Annual reporting

of hours 80/year

240/three yrs Yes

Can be struck from register

Non-practising members, MITs, (reduced hours for special cases)

APEGS Participation in

program 80/year

240/three yrs No None

Licence waivers may exempt some members in special cases

APEGNB Annual

commitment

80/yr recommended 240/three yrs

required

Yes Can be struck from register

Non-practising members, MITs, (exemptions for special cases)

Engineers NS Annual

declaration Min. 60/year 240/three yrs

No Can be struck from register

Non-practising members (including those on leave or

unemployed)

Engineers PEI Annual reporting

of hours Min 60/year

240/three yrs Yes


Non-Practising members (leave, unemployed, etc.), practising

part-time, exemptions for special cases

PEGNL Annual reporting

of hours Min 60/year

240/three yrs Yes


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

PEO Have voluntary online recording centre, Council has passed direction to require a mandatory annual declaration (regulations being developed)

OIQ Guideline exists; proposed program is based on self-evaluation of professional competencies and has been before the Office des professions since 2008

APEY Based on APEGGA model NAPEG Based on APEGGA model

Situation in Engineering Worldwide • 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

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix D(ii)



• 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 (Fédération Européenne d'Associations Nationales d'Ingénieurs, or the federation of professional engineering associations from 31 European countries) urges all of its national member organizations to adopt continuing professional development requirements

Situation in Other Professions in Canada • Continuing professional development is required in most other regulated professions in Canada

including: accounting, law, pharmacy, teaching, architecture, veterinary sciences, and all health-care related professions.

• A 1999 study of 343 professional regulatory bodies across Canada found that the majority had continuing professional development policies. In 80% of those professions with policies, continuing professional development is mandatory.1

• Engineering associations in Canada, on the other hand, have mandatory programs in fewer than 50% of the associations. This may be perceived as lagging behind the continuing professional development programs and requirements of other regulated professions.

Other Pertinent Information • 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 years2

• 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 year4

• This increasing rate of change as well as increasing specialization create rapid change in knowledge requirements within professional practice.

1 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)

http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/Importance-AER-Sep-1982.pdf�

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf�

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0134.html�



• Some observers have suggested that there is a new cynicism on the part of government and society

in regards to the system of self-regulation5

• 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 Advantage Disadvantage Admission standards Thorough check of credentials Only performed once, at point of

entry to the profession Continuing Professional Development Program

Applies to all registrants Registrants’ resistance to mandatory programs CPD hours ≠ competence

Practice Guidelines Engineering association can clearly set a standard

Use of the guidelines is at the discretion of each engineer

Practice Reviews Proactively evaluates actual practice

Only a minority of professional engineers are evaluated

Investigation Process

Evaluates actual practice Reactive measure only

Investigations as a result of a public complaint

Evaluates actual practice Reactive measure with a narrow focus

Disciplinary Orders Specific and targeted to the individual engineer

Reactive measure only

5 Casey, James T. “Continuing Professional Development Programs: A Transition to a New Paradigm”



It is therefore recommended that the following Guiding Principles form the basis for all continuing professional development programs:

1. Requirement to participate in a measurable continuing professional development program, where all practitioners have the responsibility for the maintenance of their knowledge.

2. The continuing professional development program takes into account the fact that knowledge and skills may be acquired through many means.

3. Reporting requirements, the form and extent may vary. 4. Provisions to conduct quality and/or risk-based audits. 5. Mobility provisions, to eliminate duplicate reporting for individual engineers. 6. Consequences for non-compliance.

Anticipated outcomes of implementing the principles: • 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



Element: Negotiating International Recognition Agreements


Purpose – To establish a uniform approach for the development of international recognition agreements, to increase the mobility of internationally registered engineers and Canadian professional engineers, and to facilitate foreign qualification recognition.

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.

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix E(i)


International Agreements Guiding Principles and Research.doc Page 1 of 3

Authority to Conclude International Agreements

Research Current Situation within Engineering Associations in Canada 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.

Status of International Agreements with

Constituent Associations CTI *

(2

006)

APE

C

Aus

tral

ia

(200

7)

Hon

g Ko

ng

(200

4)

Irel

and

(200

9)

NA

FTA

Texa

s (2

010)

APEGBC APEGGA APEGS APEGM

PEO

OIQ APEGNB

Engineers Nova Scotia Engineers PEI

PEGNL

APEY

NAPEG * CTI agreement is a hybrid of academic and full professional level In addition, some associations have concluded their own agreements, or made decisions related to international applicants, as follows:

APEGBC Administer the APEC/EMF register for Canadian Professional Engineers APEGGA Accept the NCEES Record Book of United States PE’s, similar to what the

states do for one another APEGS Accept the NCEES Record Book of United States PE’s, similar to what the

states do for one another Accept Texas PE’s as temporary members (under NAFTA)

APEGM Accept PE’s from United States for Temporary Licensure OIQ Office des Professions is moving towards recognition for French engineers

KAllen

Text Box

C-476-2.4 Appendix E(ii)



Situation in Engineering Worldwide • 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)

Situation in Other Professions in Canada • 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”.

Other Pertinent Information • 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

http://www.apecengineer.org.tw/�

http://www.kpea.or.kr/�

http://www.iem.org.my/�

http://www.ies.org.sg/�

http://www.iesl.lk/�



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 negotiating Mutual Recognition Agreements.

2. A broad consensus by constituent associations must support the decision to enter into negotiations of any new Mutual Recognition Agreement, as per the Engineers Canada voting protocol.

3. Mutual Recognition Agreements exist at three levels: Those that focus on academic equivalency; Those that focus on professional equivalency (education + experience + good character); Full licensure (e.g. PE = P.Eng.). 4. Mutual Recognition Agreements serve to facilitate the mobility of Canadian

professional engineers abroad.

5. Mutual Recognition Agreements should include provisions for reporting numbers of applicants between jurisdictions.

Anticipated outcomes of a process for concluding international agreements: • Uniform approach to dealing with Mutual Recognition Agreements • Creation of a legislative framework to handle Mutual Recognition Agreements • Increased mobility of internationally registered engineers and of Canadian Professional Engineers



EQUITY AND DIVERSITY COMMITTEE – ESTABLISHMENT OF PEER REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE Purpose: To seek Council approval for the establishment of a sub-committee comprised of the EDC Chair, EDC’s two LGA members and two elected members of Council. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That Council approve the establishment of an Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC) Peer Review Subcommittee to review and implement the Equity and Diversity Policy Statement #1:

That PEO Council demonstrate leadership regarding equity and diversity, including review of its own processes and training programs and seek new ways for PEO to strive to be responsible and answerable to its members, staff and stakeholders on these matters.

That Council appoint Márta Ecsedi, Rakesh Shreewastav, Sharon Reid, Rob Willson and Chris Taylor to the Equity and Diversity Committee Peer Review Sub-committee. Prepared by: Márta Ecsedi, P.Eng., Chair of the Equity and Diversity Committee. Motion Sponsor: Rakesh Shreewastav, P.Eng. 1. Need for PEO Action

The Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC), in accordance with the mandate approved by Council, has proceeded to develop an Implementation Plan for the approved Equity and Diversity Policy and Guidelines to integrate equity and diversity values and principles into the general policy and business operations of PEO. In the year since Council’s approval, the EDC has:

1) Created a member survey which is at this time under review by an external lawyer. 2) Developed an outline for consultation with Council defining the next steps to be facilitated

by Council. In lieu of Council’s availability on March 1, 2012 at its plenary session, the EDC is proposing the creation of the above mentioned sub-committee to review and implement the Equity and Diversity Policy Statement #1.. The EDC believes that the work that would have been done at that plenary session could be accomplished by this proposed sub-committee.


• That Council approve the establishment of the EDC Peer Review Sub-committee. • That Council approve the appointments to the EDC Subcommittee as noted in the motion.

3. Next Steps

• The Equity and Diversity Peer Review Sub-committee will be established and will meet face to face in April followed by conference calls as required in order to further develop action plans for the objectives outlined in the Guidelines for Implementation of the Equity and Diversity Policy.

C-476-3.1

of 2

4. Peer Review & Process Followed

Process Followed

Outline the Policy Development Process followed. • Following Council’s approval of the Equity and Diversity Policy (Appendix A) and

Guidelines at the February 17-18, 2011 meeting of Council, the EDC members proceeded with the development of an implementation plan and a member survey.


Identify who is to be consulted; how they will be consulted and what kind of response is expected. • In collaboration with legal counsel, the Equity and Diversity Committee will

collaborate with Council representation through the proposed creation of the EDC Peer Review Sub-committee.

• The EDC Subcommittee would, if approved by Council, include four members of Council (two LGAs and two elected Councillors).


Detail peer review and relevant stakeholder review undertaken • A chronology and motion history of the Equity and Diversity Policy is attached as

Appendix B.

5. Appendices

• Appendix A – Chronology and Motion History • Appendix B – Equity and Diversity Policy

Appendix A: Chronology and motion history – PEO Equity and Diversity Policy

Meeting Date Motion Approved

June 21, 2003

Council

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

June 22, 2007 Council

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.


Equity and Diversity Policy & Guidelines for Implementation

EQUITY AND DIVERSITY POLICY

Purpose The objective of this policy is that PEO’s environment is one in which all stakeholders are treated equitably and where members of diverse groups are recognized, welcomed and valued.

Application This policy applies to all PEO staff, including full-time, part-time, and temporary employees, summer students, individuals acting on behalf of the association, including, volunteers, licence holders (members), and applicants. It guides the expectations of values held by consultants, contractors, as well as other stakeholders in the communities served by PEO. This Policy will work in parallel with the PEO Human Rights Policy that is under development. There are Guidelines for the interpretation of this Policy to clarify the scope and intent. These Guidelines include mechanisms for Complaints and Redress. 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.

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.

3. That PEO seek to incorporate equity and diversity provisions in its organizational decision-making,

visioning and strategic planning.

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.

5. 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.

6. That PEO’s activities in recruitment and retention of staff and volunteers have a focus on achieving equity and increasing diversity within the engineering profession.


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.

GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EQUITY AND DIVERSITY POLICY

Introduction As a global leader in self-regulation, PEO is a progressive organization that is reflective of and responsive to the needs of the diverse community it serves. The Equity and Diversity Policy is an example of best practice in organizational leadership as it embraces the values of mutual respect and dignity for all persons. These Guidelines for Implementation of the Equity and Diversity Policy will assist PEO in striving to create a culture of shared values and behaviours consistent with the mission and core values of the association. This culture will be characterized by:

• 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 PEO’s 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.

PEO’s 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.

• Member survey and self-identification. • Functionality review of current membership database.

• Communication plan involving materials in a variety of formats. • Review of policies and recommendations for identifying if changes are needed. • 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 EDC’s 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 Ontario’s 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 PEO’s 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.

Complaint and Redress Where an individual perceives a contravention of the Equity and Diversity Policy, the following mechanisms can be used. However, wherever possible, an informal resolution to complaints is the preferred approach.

PEO staff that have a complaint against the E&D Policy are governed by the Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy.

Mechanism for PEO Staff

An individual knowledgeable about complaint resolution on the People Development Department of PEO will be designated as the contact point for PEO members who wish to bring a complaint based on the E&D Policy.

Mechanisms for Members

If an investigation is necessary and the complaint is deemed valid, redress will usually involve the provision of education and training. Vexatious complaints should be dealt with firmly. Further guidance on Complaint and Redress mechanisms may be found in Guideline on Human Rights in Professional Practice

, published by PEO, June 2000.

The Making A Complaint

guide, 2007, on the PEO site can be used as a model process.

Briefing Note-Decision


C-476-3.2

ENGINEER OF RECORD UPDATE Purpose: To report on the meeting of the Professional Standards Committee’s Structural Engineering Subccommittee that was called to discuss the Engineer of Record proposal and to provide the policy analysis conducted on this matter. Motions:

1. That Council receive the policy analysis and supporting documents attached as C-476-3.2, Appendices A to E inclusive.

2. That Council direct the Professional Standards Committee to develop

guidelines and/or standards that identify a specific practitioner in each discipline on each building project who will be responsible for co-ordinating the flow of design information to all other practitioners involved with work in that discipline.

3. That Council direct the Professional Standards Committee to revise the Guideline for General Review of Construction to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the practitioner carrying out general review and to delineate the difference in roles of the design engineer and review engineer.

Prepared by: Bernard Ennis, P. Eng. – Director, Policy and Professional Affairs Motion Sponsor: Denis Dixon, P. Eng. 1. Need for PEO Action At the meeting on September 24, 2011 Council passed the following motion:

That the CEO/Registrar: a) in consultation with the Professional Standards Committee, shall

undertake to study and to propose amendments to Regulations 941 and 260 under the Professional Engineers Act and PEO Guidelines to incorporate "Engineer of Record and Review Commitment", with proper peer review and consultation, to ensure lines of responsibility are clear for all work related to the practice of professional engineering and that in a multi-disciplined project, each discipline must be signed off by a Professional Engineer; and

b) report back to Council at March 2012 meeting. As a first step in the process of carrying out this task, the subcommittee of the Professional Standards Committee that is developing the Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Structural Engineering Services for Buildings held a special meeting, with numerous guests, to discuss the topic of Engineer of Record. Following the meeting, the attendees were asked to complete a survey to determine their positions on the issue of “Engineer of Record”. Eight of the attendees responded. The feedback obtained strongly indicated the following:

of 3

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.

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)

472nd MEETING OF COUNCIL

September 22-23, 2011

DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS

ENGINEER OF RECORD That the CEO/Registrar:

a) in consultation with the Professional Standards

Committee, shall undertake to study and to propose

amendments to Regulations 941 and 260 under the

Professional Engineers Act and PEO Guidelines to

incorporate "Engineer of Record and Review

Commitment", with proper peer review and

consultation, to ensure lines of responsibility are clear

for all work related to the practice of professional

engineering and that in a multi-disciplined project, each

discipline must be signed off by a Professional Engineer;

and

b) report back to Council at March 2012 meeting.

CARRIED.

AElliot

Text Box


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 design–build contractor. In contrast to

design–tender arrangements, design–build 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:

• Owner retains control over all aspects/quality of the project

• Owner maintains flexibility in decision-making

• Owner makes final decision

• Owner realizes benefits of competitive bidding

• Owner breaks project into small pieces that can be more effectively managed

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

should seek written interpretation or clarification of requirements from the

designer of the works. These interpretations and clarifications should be

confirmed in writing and become an integral component of the project

documentation.

The Guideline allows the possibility that the general review engineer did not design the work and

therefore is not responsible for the any aspect of the design.

Current PEO Work

Recently the Professional Standards Committee established a subcommittee for the purpose of

revising the Guideline for Structural Engineering in Buildings and for considering the need for

practice standards for structural engineering work. In part, this subcommittee was needed to deal

with the problems arising from practice of project management. Many construction projects have

no prime consultant or core design team that oversees all aspects of the design and review.

Instead, the owner, either directly or through contractors or suppliers, employs many different

engineers to provide services for specific components of the building. Unfortunately, in many

projects there is no coordination between the various engineers who are often unaware of the

other engineers working on the project.

The Guideline Subcommittee is attempting to develop recommended best practices for

coordinating among professional engineers in these situations. Their primary suggestion is to

establish a Structural Engineer of Record who will be required to provide this coordination role.

However, they recognize that an owner cannot be forced by PEO to retain a SER and provide

that person with the contractual authority necessary to carry out the coordinating role. They also

agreed that no professional engineer should be required to take on this role without the

contractual authority and additional fees appropriate for the work. So unless the owner can be

legally required to retain a SER and compensate that person accordingly there is little that can be

done to implement such a scheme.

A proposal was made to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by Engineers, Architects

and Building Officials (EABO) to include a requirement for a prime consultant in the Ontario

Building Code. Other groups, including Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials

(LMCBO), support the concept and agreed to lobby for its implementation. The Ministry has not

responded to this proposal though staff has informally reported that the Ministry believes that it

is a practice that cannot be applied as a solution in all situations and therefore the Minister will

not proceed with any regulation changes to implement a prime consultant or Coordinating

Registered Professional.

Legal Questions

There are several legal questions that need to be answered in order to determine whether it is

possible to implement a requirement that would impose on a single engineer in each discipline

the role of Engineer of Record, where that role involves taking responsibility for the design of all

aspects of the project in his or her discipline and requires that this engineer also carry out the

general review of the project. Those questions are:

(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.”

Extract from APEGBC Website

Designated Structural Engineer (Struct.Eng.)

This is a special designation given to Professional Engineers who meet the requirements to create and manage the

designs of a building's primary structural system.

History of the Struct.Eng. Designation

In September 2001, APEGBC members approved a new bylaw which gave Council the authority to establish the application and review process for a new Designated Structural Engineer status, and to proceed with its implementation.

It is up to the relevant Authority Having Jurisdiction (eg. municipality) as to when the services of a Designated Structural Engineer (Struct. Eng.) will be required. APEGBC has recommended to municipalities in B.C. that, effective January 1, 2007, the Structural Engineer of Record for Part 3 Buildings, as described by Clause 2.1.2.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1998 BC Building Code, be required to have the Struct. Eng. designation.

Following a positive by-law amendment vote by the membership, effective January 1st, 2004, the designation Structural Engineer of Record (Struct.Eng.) has been renamed Designated Structural Engineer (Struct. Eng.).

On November 14, 2006, Vancouver City Council approved a report to adopt the 2006 British Columbia Building Code with amendments as the next edition of the Vancouver Building By-law. These amendments include a requirement for designers responsible for the design of a Part 3 building, carried out in accordance with Part 4 of Division B to have a Structural Engineer Designation in accordance with APEGBC's By-laws. The new 2007 Vancouver Building By-law is mandatory for all building permit applications submitted to the City on and after May 1, 2007. The Vancouver Building By-law with the referenced amendments can be found at http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/CBOFFICIAL/vbbl/index.htm#amendments.

Other cities/municipalities that require the Designated Structural Engineer in some capacity:

Burnaby

City of Langley

When is a Struct.Eng. required? 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

- Group C, residential occupancies, - Group D, business and personal services occupancies, - Group E, mercantile occupancies, or - Group F, Division 2 and 3, medium and low hazard industrial occupancies. " APEGBC has recommended that a Designated Structural Engineer (Struct. Eng.) not be required for: : • Part 9 Buildings; • Structural components of Part 9 Buildings that are designed under Part 4; • Structures which are outside the scope of the British Columbia Building Code , the Vancouver Building Bylaw, or the National Building Code of Canada; or • Components that are not part of the Primary Structural System, e.g. support, anchorage and seismic restraint of electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems and architectural components, etc.

From: Peter Mitchell [[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 1:53 PM

To: Bernard Ennis

Subject: FW: Questions regarding Designated Structural Engineer

Bernie, in the order that they were posed following are my responses to your questions. In

addition, Derek Doyle (APEGBC’s Executive Director) sent me an e-mail that he received from

Michael Hogan asking for information on APEGBC’s approach to developing the Engineer of

Record and another e-mail from Denis Dixon as Chair of PEO’s Professional Practice

Committee and President Elect raising some issues regarding Mr. Hogan’s 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

Commissioner’s 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 Commissioner’s 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 A-

2.2.7.2.(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 public’s (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 building’s design and field review.

Owner’s and contractor’s 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.) APEGBC’s 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 government’s 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

Engineer of Record Discussions Structural Engineering Guideline Subcommittee The Structural Engineering in Buildings Guideline Subcommittee was formed in early 2010 to work on revisions to the existing guideline. One item on the subcommittee’s task list is to consider the possibility of identifying a single practitioner as “structural engineer of record” responsible for coordinating design work done by the various practitioners. July 2, 2010 There was discussion regarding the need for a structural engineer of record. J. Mark: The CISC guide refers to structural engineer of record. C. Rahimi: Believes that a single engineer should be responsible for

the structural engineering of buildings to provide drawings.

E. Poon: Structural engineer of record generally considered to be

the engineer reviewing the work. N. Kennedy agreed that, if there was an engineer of

record, it would be an engineer hired by the contractor to monitor construction.

But would that engineer be responsible for ensuring that

the design is correct? R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: Coordination between all engineers is necessary.

Consulting engineers must provide all information needed to design the connections.

M. Moffat: Believes structural engineer of record is too big an issue

to reach decision. September 22, 2010 D. Ireland: Noted that Part A and Part B of the existing guideline

were acceptable. Suggested that a Structural Engineer of record was a good idea.

J. Mark: Agreed that a SER was a good idea. Who is responsible

for the structural engineering if no one is responsible for all the structure?

D. Tipler: What is the “structure”? Who designs the stairs, the connections, etc? Who is responsible for whether these are correct?

D. Ireland: What would be the role of SER? D. Garbuio: The SER checks that all components are designed by

professional engineers. Discussion about whether there should be requirements for all other disciplines to have an engineer of record. K. Chessman: Noted that the BC SER is responsible for the structural

integrity of the primary structure. That is a good definition.

D. Ireland: The important issue is that the coordination of the

primary structure design is currently not done. D. Tipler. The identified problems do not justify the idea of a SER

as responsible for all structural issues. S. John: It is a good idea to define this role since it includes those

things structural engineer is currently responsible for and items currently excluded.

D. Tipler: The SER is a new category of engineer that is not

understood in practice. N. Kennedy: Noted there is a problem of enforcing rules about SER.

In BC the rule is enforced by Building Department through the Building Code. This would be a problem in Ontario.

Discussion about contractual relationships and division of roles between various parties. D. Tipler: The real problem is not having sufficient information on

the drawing. J. Mark: If engineers provided the information given in the list in

the existing guideline the fabricators would be happy. But engineers are not providing this.

D. Ireland: Reported that City of Oshawa is requiring each project to

include a structural design matrix. B. Ennis: Reported that PSC had considered creating a

requirement for practitioner to prepare a structural design matrix but that when this suggestion was sent out

for consultation the overwhelming response from practitioners was that this was not a good idea.

D. Ireland: A design matrix would be a very useful for engineers

making alterations to existing buildings. D. Tipler: Would not mandate inclusion of the matrix because it is

simply a transfer of information from code to the form and would lead to municipalities wanting more information. Preparation of all this information is an additional cost to the engineer.

D. Ireland: Municipalities are going to require these forms anyway.

Rather than dealing with many different forms there should be one form specified by PEO. There are multiple purposes to drawings. One is for future design purposes/ Also, municipalities need the information to do their job of protecting the public.

Discussion of details of coordinating connections on non-primary elements. Subcommittee suggested the following practice:

a) If details not shown on structural drawings the designer of non-primary elements to notify of any impact of the element on the primary structure.

b) If the structural engineer provides design of how he or she anticipates the non-primary elements to connect these details are not to be revised unless a discussion or communication between the two parties involved has occurred and the primary designer has agreed with the alternative detail proposed.

This leads into a discussion we should have regarding the responsibilities of the

fabricator and secondary element designer (presumably a P.Eng) to ensure they understand the intention of the primary designer and to ensure that their work does not cause negative effects. If both parties are P.Eng's, both should be expected to provide the same degree of care.

The structural engineer should show a concept detail of how he or she anticipates the connection of non-primary structural or non-structural elements if a detail is necessary. For instance, the engineer may want a precast panel bearing connection to bear on the centre of a steel beam rather than on a flange edge and should indicate same. Alternately, for concrete floors, the engineer should indicate whether pockets are allowed in the slab edge to receive precast panel connections. The structural engineer should also indicate the loads and load locations from those elements if the loads impact the design of the main structural system. October 27, 2010 N. Kennedy: Need to have coordination but, if owner is not willing to,

how can that be enforced?

B. Ennis: Is an SER necessary? N. Kennedy: Depends on definition of SER. R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: Unless there is a standard that forces professional

engineers to coordinate, there will always be gaps. SER is not necessary.

Is the family doctor responsible for what the surgeon

does? No. Need to have a situation where all the engineers

coordinate. N. Kennedy: For the purposes of this guideline, we are looking for the

coordination of the structural engineering. Need a position (clerk of the works?) who coordinates

the flow of information between the different various designers.

R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: Right now, there is no communication between the

various engineers. R. Morrison: As a fabricator, I expect to receive complete structural

drawings, not have to find some structural elements in the architectural details. All structural elements need to be show on structural drawings.

N. Kennedy: It is the general contractor’s job to review all the

drawings and to interpret them to determine what is needed for the project.

R. Morrison: If elements are not shown on drawings, how can the

general contractor ask questions. If an element is loaded, it needs to be shown on

structural drawings. N. Kennedy: No need to duplicate information shown elsewhere in the

drawings as information such as dimensions can be uncoordinated.

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 fabricator’s poorly-designed weld of a hangar and the engineer’s incorrect sizing of a beam. R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: Responsibility cannot be determined because there is a

circular loop of information from engineer to fabricator and back, with no-one taking responsibility for the needed data.

There has to be a proper control of the modifications on-

site. Due to time shortages, changes are made without any direction from the engineer.

N. Kennedy: Suggests that PEO could require each firm to have a

quality assurance program. If the firm does not have one, how can it verify that it has performed its due diligence? Referred to the APEGBC form as an example.

January 25, 2011 N. Kennedy: One of the big ideas discussed on previous meeting (November 24, 2010) was to define the term Primary Structural Engineer. We need the coordination in structural work, the team. The primary Structural Engineer should not be responsible for “everything”. Instead, that person has to coordinate with other designers in the team and has to oversee that all designers are working from the correct criteria and are able to do their work. Ex.: The designer of the superstructure passes all information and design criteria required for foundation design to the foundation designer. Everybody is responsible for their own work. D. Ireland: Structural Engineer of Record (SER) is well understood term. Definition is Ok and we should keep it. N. Kennedy: Disagree. The definition was used before, can confuse people, not sure if everyone knows what it means. S. John: True, people assume the meaning, they don’t read the definition. K. Chessman: I agree. We should establish the definition. It can be the Primary Structural Engineer as written on page 4 of the Guideline. D. Ireland: The “structural integrity” is confusing term, should be removed from this location as N. Kennedy suggested. We have to define the “primary structural system”. The general discussion started about “who is responsible for what” and which loads and design criteria should structural engineer specify on his/her drawings?

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 don’t 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 designer’s 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. Don’t 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.

R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: If we use the term “secondary” structural engineer, it can be confused with the designer of secondary structure. N. Kennedy: I agree. 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.

Consultation with Practitioners

Engineer A

We (the engineering profession) already have a lot of Acts and regulations specifying when we

are to be involved in some capacity. The OBC, for example, already tabulates when and why

engineers are to be involved with building design and construction and specifies minimum

design criteria. The OH&S Act also specifies similar involvement on construction projects and

in industrial settings (e.g. PSH&S reviews). There seems to be no problem with engineering

services being required (what, when and why) as long as determining who is qualified is left to

PEO and how to do the work is left to the engineer.

I think most (or all) agree that improvements in the areas of building project design presentation

and coordination is a worthwhile goal. I can see a benefit having a single point of responsibility

for coordination of design and oversight of construction, especially if adequate compensation is

available to do the work properly. To prevent lowest common denominator pricing typical on

design fees, having PEO control who is able to provide the coordination service by applying

some appropriate criteria may be part of the resolution.

I think it is unreasonable; however, for one engineer to take responsibility for all design and

construction. This is much different than being responsible for coordinating the team of

engineers typically involved in a building project. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be some

level of verification of work done by other engineers as part of the coordination, but each

engineer needs to be responsible for their own work and each company employing engineers

needs to have some form of QA review in-house. Verification may be as simple as having the

engineer’s firm sign off on their internal QA process. In this fashion, the EOR is not telling the

mechanical contractor how to hang their ductwork, just ensuring that an engineer has designed

the system and that the design has had some level of review and approval.

The main point of contention will be in the details of what the EOR role is and is not. The

second issue will be who is able to provide EOR service. We don’t want it to become one more

obligation provided for little benefit. To arrive at some consensus for alterations to the guideline

(or to the OBC), I’m hoping for a minimal list of targeted recommendations selected to get the

best result for the least burden. I suspect this topic will be the main point for the next guideline

committee meeting…

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 isn’t 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 PEO’s 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 today’s standards, and in my

opinion, the information required on today’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 sub-

standard. 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.

Engineer of Record Survey Please complete by November 1

st

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 arms- length 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 “prime”designer 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?

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B - (a)

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????? 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 3 4 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. Do you have anything else to add? I find it very frustrating to hear from the consultants side that “we will not get paid for that” and that “our project costs will increase with no increase in fees”. When did we as a profession start competing against each other to the point that we delegate design work into Owner – Constructor contracts and lose control and quality of the full design process?

Thank you.

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B (b)


st

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?

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(c)

⌧ Yes � No

What information should be included in those specifications?

Detailed specifications is a subjective term. The primary designer needs to provide sufficient

design criteria to the designers of the secondary systems so that the seocndary sytems are

desinged properly to match the primary system. The criteria would include the load criteria

and defection limitations.

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 � 3 � 4 ⌧ 5

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.

Do you have anything else to add?

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.


st




Yes.

The gap between the design and build.




Yes. See Garbutt case.




X� Yes � No




� Yes NO.X It is not necessary.



the subcontractors?

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(d)

� Yes � NoX


Only include the information at the interface.










� 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.





Co-ordinating the flow of information?

He is not a co-ordinator. He is the Chief Engineer.

� Yes � X No



Yes, Bernie. You are making this far too complicated.

Thank you.

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(e)


st




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.




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.




NO




� Yes � No

n/a for me, but my opinion: if a single engineer takes the responsibility for other people’s

work, he/she has to show that responsibility by checking and sealing drawings prepared by

others. How else is that “responsibility” manifested and proved?

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(f)



the subcontractors?

Yes


-Latest issue of structural drawings, addendums, sketches

-Design forces

-Design criteria










� 4





Yes


Designer of the primary structural system


1) Every day practice shows a huge gap in quality of construction documents/drawings. We

really have to work together to standardize criteria and increase the quality of these

documents.

It should not be allowed to have two engineers where:

- Engineer provides bare minimum of information on drawings to get the permit, but that

information is insufficient to build the structure properly.

- Engineer spends time to check and review his/her own drawings and provides all

information required for safe and economical design/construction of the structure

-Both of above mentioned engineers are equally paid for their work.

2) Healthy communication between the engineers on the same project is crucial.

Thank you.


st




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.




As above.




� Yes XX� No




� Yes XX� No



the subcontractors?

XX� Yes � No


As today, relevant codes and standards should be referenced, as well as specific details as to

end use. How the subcontractor fabricates is up to him or her, as long as the structural

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(g)

element is safe for its intended use. I wouldn’t tell him how to make something and take on

that liability.










� 1 � 2 XX� 3 � 4 � 5





XX� Yes � No


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.


st

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 well-

being? 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


subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components

provided by the subcontractors?

⌧ Yes � No


I’ll defer to the structural sub-committee as their real-world experience will make

that clear.

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix B(h)



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;


4) Is responsible for the design of the entire structural system and for verifying

that the building is constructed as designed; or


� 1 � 2 � 3 � 4 ⌧ 5

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

If yes, which engineer do you suggest should be required to provide this

coordination?


I was unconvinced by the presentation from Messrs Hogan and Adams. The

structural sub-committee members appeared to have a much stronger grasp of

the real-world issues.

Given that Council’s direction goes far beyond the structural engineer or

‘buildings’, I don’t think the structural sub-committee is the group suited to

developing thoughts on what ‘engineer or record for everything in every

project’ must mean.

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: José Vera, P. Eng. Regrets: Michael Moffatt, P. Eng. Robert Morrison, P. Eng. Edward Poon, P. Eng. Opening of Meeting 1. The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. 2. The agenda was approved. 3. A Certificate of Appreciation was given to N. Kennedy. Policy Analysis of Engineer of Record 4. J. Vera reported that a Policy Analysis paper on the Engineer of Record will be

completed in March of this year.

AElliot

Text Box


2.

Coordinating Professional Discussion 5. 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:

• PEO can only decide if we are going to have a Coordinating Engineer professional or an Engineer of Record, but not a Coordinating Architect.

• This discussion on how to incorporate a Coordinating Engineer has held up the development of this guideline.

• A Coordinating Engineer will solve gaps, but will not solve differences of opinion.

• A member expressed that having a Coordinating Engineer places unnecessary limitations on engineers.

• If work is done by multiple offices, our guideline could state that there has to be a Coordinating Engineer.

• In British Columbia, having a Structural Engineer of Record will not solve problems such as having incomplete drawings.

• Perhaps, the Coordinating Engineer should help answer questions, solve gaps and other issues, rather than be the engineer who gets the blame when something goes wrong.

• There could be two roles for the Coordinating Engineer:

(1) Coordinator (2) Dispute Resolution

• Defining the role of a Coordinating Engineer would be helpful for the profession.

• Engineering has become more fragmented. Consequently, someone, an engineer, has to solve this problem.

• Should the subcommittee wait for Council to make a decision on the Engineer of Record before continuing with the guideline?

The Terms of Reference were reviewed and the following comments were made:

• The Coordinating Engineer should be responsible for coordinating design work and not for the entire design.

• Concerns raised by practitioners, building officials and contractors regarding the lack of coordination are mentioned in the Terms of Reference.

3.

• 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.

• Questions were raised as to what a Coordinating Engineer doe when they find missing information. For example, does the Coordinating Engineer go back to the owner, or dies the Coordinating Engineer ask the design engineers to provide the missing information? Will these actions affect contracts? However, safety perhaps should override contracts. Overriding contracts is outside the scope of PEO and concerns the MMAH.

• The subcommittee should come to an agreement before bringing in the MMAH to the table.

• A member proposed that a Coordinating Engineer’s responsibility would be to ensure that the design information flows to the appropriate design engineers.

• 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.

• The guideline must be specific as to what a Coordinating Engineer is and is not since there could be unintended consequences caused by the implementation of a Coordinating Engineer.

• Should Coordinating Engineers have a designation or certain qualifications? Perhaps, the designated consulting engineer designation is appropriate.

• Other members expressed that the designated consulting engineer may not be qualified enough.

• Where would the Coordinating Engineer’s stamp go? Perhaps at the building permit level.

• The Coordinating Engineer could coordinate the work in the same company or be from another company.

• The work of a Coordinating Engineer should be a defined role with a separate fee.

• One option could be that a Coordinating Engineer would only be required when two or more companies are doing structural design work. However, contracts can require that engineers contact the general contractor and not the other engineers in the project.

4.

• If one company does all the structural work, they have their checks and balances.

• If coordinating structural engineering drawings are defined as the practice of engineering, then only engineers can legally do this work (i.e. a technician could not do this work).

The members agreed on the following:

- Where major base building components are done by two or more different engineering firms, there is value in having a Coordinating Engineer.

The members agreed that:

- The title Coordinating Structural Engineer would be more appropriate. 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. J. Vera asked the members to discuss the next steps to be taken. Meetings will be tentatively scheduled during the middle of the month, preferably

on Wednesday or Thursday nights. Adjournment 8. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix D

COMMITMENT TO GENERAL REVIEW BY ARCHITECTS AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

EABO standard form. 05/2011

PART A – TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER

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

Owner’s Name: Date:

Owner’s Address: Telephone:

Signature of Owner: Print Name: Fax: (or authorized agent)

Coordinator of the work of all design professionals: Telephone: Address: Fax:

PART B – TO BE COMPLETED BY DESIGN PROFESSIONALS

The undersigned architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) hereby declare that they are qualified in and have been retained to provide general review of the parts of construction or demolition of the building indicated, 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 current performance standards of the OAA and/or PEO.

�� ARCHITECTURAL �� STRUCTURAL �� MECHANICAL �� ELECTRICAL �� SITE SERVICES �� OTHER:___________________ Consultant Name: Signature: Print Name: Date:

Telephone: Address:


Telephone: Address:


Telephone: Address:


Telephone: Address:

Permit Application No.

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-3.2 Appendix E



APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS “TAKE BACK MANUFACTURING” INITIATIVE Purpose: To appoint a Councillor to monitor the “Take Back Manufacturing” initiative of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)

That Council appoint [name to be inserted at the meeting] to attend, if invited, Society of Manufacturing Engineers’ (SME) local meetings, promotions and trade shows as the PEO representative advocating the regulatory mandate of PEO in the context of SME's Take Back Manufacturing” (TBM) initiative, such appointment to expire on the date that the Councilor’s term on Council expires. The appointee will present to Council a list of items accomplished by the TBM initiative and by him/her personally on behalf of PEO in this regard, such reports to be not less than twice annually.

Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar 1. Need for PEO Action

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 PEO’s 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.

C-476-3.3



PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INDUSTRIAL SUB-COMMITTEE Purpose: To consider establishing a sub-committee of the Professional Standards Committee to address industrial issues. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That Council direct the Professional Standards Committee to establish an Industrial sub-committee with a mandate to address industrial issues, within the practice of professional engineering, related to industrial/product design and manufacturing. Prepared by: J. David Adams, P.Eng. - President 1. Need for PEO Action

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

A proactive approach of establish a sub-committee within the Professional Standards Committee may facilitate this transition and protect the public interest. It would demonstrate another positive step to government regarding how PEO is working with industry to smoothly implement the repeal of the industrial exception.

3. Next Steps (if motion approved)

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 sub-committee.

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 PSC’s protocols and approved by Council.

C-476-3.4

Section 4

IN-CAMERA SESSION

This portion of the meeting is closed to the public as provided in S. 15(4) of By-Law No. 1.



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 (416-840-1114 or [email protected]) 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 Minutes – 225th Executive Committee Meeting – October 2011 5.2 Minutes – 474th Council Meeting – November 2011 5.3 Minutes – 475th Council Meeting – December 2011 5.4 Consulting Engineer Designation Applications 5.5 Committee Terms of Reference, Work Plans and Human Resources Plans 5.6 Changes to Committees/Task Forces Roster 5.7 Approval of Examination Awards Recipient

C-476-5

mailto:[email protected]�



MINUTES – 225th Executive Committee – October 11, 2011 Purpose – To ratify the minutes of the 225th Executive Committee meeting Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the minutes of the 225th meeting of the Executive Committee, held on October 11, 2011, as presented to the meeting at C-476-5.1, Appendix A, be ratified. Prepared by: Allison Elliot – Secretariat Co-ordinator 1. Need for PEO Action To practice best business practices, Council should formally record its consent to the actions taken by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee, at its meeting held January 31, 2012 confirmed that the attached minutes from the 225th meeting of the Executive Committee, held October 11, 2011, accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. 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

C-476-5.1

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: D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair J.D. Adams, P.Eng., President (by teleconference) [items 11-41 to 11-48 only] D. Dixon, P.Eng., President-elect D.L. Freeman, P.Eng., Past President T. Chong, P.Eng., Vice President S.K. Gupta, P.Eng. R. Huang, LL.B. [minute 11-41 only] Regrets: P. Quinn, P.Eng., Vice President 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

The Committee reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Moved by Vice President Chong, seconded by Councillor Gupta: That: a) the agenda, as amended, be approved; and b) the Chair be authorized to suspend the regular order of business.

CARRIED


225th Executive Committee Meeting Minutes – October 11, 2011 Page 2 of 6

11-42 IN CAMERA SESSION

Moved by Councillor Gupta; seconded by President-elect Dixon: That the Executive Committee move in camera.

CARRIED

While in camera, the Executive Committee: 1. Discussed next steps with respect to PEO-OSPE relations; 2. Verified the minutes of the 224th Executive Committee

meeting, held August 2011; 3. Discussed a Registrar’s Investigation Report.

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.


Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Councillor Gupta: That Computershare Investor Services Inc. be appointed as PEO’s Official Elections Agent for the 2012 Council elections.

CARRIED

11-45 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

President Adams reported on a recent preliminary Finance Committee meeting, held in advance of the regularly scheduled October 20th Finance Committee meeting. At the request of President-elect Dixon, President Adams agreed to provide written minutes of the preliminary meeting to all members of the Finance Committee.

11-46 REGIONAL OFFICE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Vice President Chong requested that the Executive Committee consider supporting a 17% increase in the Regional Office budget for next year. Vice President Chong was advised that any matters affecting the Regional Office must come to Council from the Regional Councillors Committee. Consequently, no action was taken on this item.

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 PEO’s 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

The Committee was provided with a report on the consultation with Regional Congresses regarding by-law confirmations by members. The Chair explained that this report was in response to the Committee’s request at its March 2011 meeting that this matter be referred to the Regional Councillors Committee for consultation at 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 PEO’s 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;


3. Members are to be provided with a forum on which to post their comments and which would be available to all members; and

4. An understanding that the list of proposed associated regulations, already approved by Council, would continue to be moved through the government should the referendum results be favourable.

11-50 ENGINEER OF RECORD

Councillor Gupta requested whether there were any regulations formulated around the Engineer of Record concept that could be reviewed by the Legislation Committee. Mr. Zuccon advised that the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) has had much discussion on the concept over the years, and has concluded it is matter for the municipalities rather than PEO. However, the matter will be discussed further at the upcoming PSC meeting. It was agreed that the Legislation and Professional Standards Committees would work together with respect to this project.

11-51 REGULATION PROVISIONS UPDATE

Councillor Gupta advised that the Legislation Committee was reviewing and sorting by group all the outstanding regulations so that it has a clear understanding of the issues involved. He explained it is necessary for the architects of the original policy intent of the regulations to be consulted so that the Committee may confirm that Council’s original intent is still valid.

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

Mr. Allen advised that, due to recent changes to the Professional Engineers Act, Council now has the ability to specify requirements for a provisional licence. He advised that President Adams would like to initiate a graduated licence as well as a wage schedule for such licences. Due to President Adams absence, discussion on this matter was deferred until the next meeting.

11-54 REACTIVATION OF FEE SCHEDULE COMMITTEE

President-elect Dixon requested that it be recommended to Council that Council consider reactivating the Fee Schedule Committee, similar to other professions.


Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Past President Freeman: That it be recommended to Council that Council reactivate the Fee Schedule Committee.

CARRIED

Mr. Allen stated that staff would prepare a briefing note with respect to section 76(1) to (4) only of Regulation 941 under the Act, which relate to the establishment of a Fee Schedule Committee.

11-55 RENTAL SPACE

President-elect Dixon inquired whether consideration had been given to renting out meeting room space. Mr. Allen advised that provision for rental revenue was included in the business plan. A brochure will be prepared for tenant information about rental space and will be presented at the January 2012 Executive Committee meeting.

11-56 MINUTES – 224th Executive Committee Meeting – August 2011

The Committee reviewed the minutes of the224th Executive Committee meeting held August 2011. That the minutes of the 224th meeting of the Executive Committee, held on August 9, 2011, as presented to the meeting at E-225-5.1, Appendix A, accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting.

CARRIED

11-57 EMERGING DISCIPLINES UPDATE

Due to President Adams’ absence, discussion of this item was deferred until the next meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded. These minutes consist of ten pages and minutes 11-41 to 12-57. ________________________________________ ______________________________________ D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar



MINUTES – 474th Meeting of Council – November 2011 Purpose: To record that the minutes of the 474th meeting of Council accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the minutes of the 474th meeting of Council, held on November 11, 2011, as presented to the meeting at C-476-5.2, Appendix A, accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. Prepared by: Allison M. Elliot, FCSI, Secretariat Co-ordinator 1. Need for PEO Action To practice best business practices, Council should record that the minutes of the meetings of Council accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. 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

C-476-5.2

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: D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair J.D. Adams, P.Eng., President D. Dixon, P.Eng., President-elect D.L. Freeman, P.Eng., Past President

P.J. Quinn, P.Eng., Vice President [minutes 11035 to 11046] T. Chong, P.Eng. Vice President

P. Ballantyne, P.Eng. I. Bhatia, P.Eng.

D. Carlos, P.Eng. [via teleconference] R.A. Fraser, P.Eng. [minutes 11035 to 11049] S.K. Gupta, P.Eng. [minutes 11035 to 11049] M. Hogan, P.Eng. R. Huang, LLB. [minutes 11035 to 11049] M. Long Irwin [minutes 11037 to 11049]

R. Jones, P.Eng. L. King, P.Eng. [minutes 11035 to 11050]

B. Kossta J.K.W. Lees, P.Eng. [minutes 11035 to 11050]

C.T. Moore, P.Eng. S. Reid, C.Tech. C.D. Roney, P.Eng. T. Sharma, P.Eng. R.K. Shreewastav, P.Eng.

M. Stauch [minutes 11035 to 11051] C. Taylor, P.Eng. M. Wesa, P.Eng. R. Willson, P.Eng. Regrets: W. Kershaw, P.Eng.

R.J. Hilton, P.Eng.


474th Meeting of Council – November 11, 2011 Page 2 of 15

Guests H. Brown, Brown and Cohen, Communications & Public Affairs Inc. G. Wowchuk, P.Eng., Executive Analyst

Staff: K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar S.W. Clark, LL.B., Chief Administrative Officer A.M. Elliot M. Price, P.Eng. [minute 11037 only] M. Cellucci, CA [ minute 11037 only] CALL TO ORDER Notice having been given and a quorum being present, the Chair

called the meeting to order.

11035 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Council reviewed the agenda. Vice President Quinn requested that items 5.7 and 5.8 be removed from the agenda or, if they are to be dealt with, to do so in open session rather than in-camera as indicated on the agenda. Following a brief discussion, the Chair ruled that consideration will be dealt with during the in-camera session. Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by Councillor Shreewastav: 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

Councillor Carlos, who was participating by telephone, advised that although he could hear the meeting earlier, the meeting could not hear him at the time the agenda was approved. In his opinion, removal of items 5.7 and 5.8 should be considered during the approval of the main agenda and not separately at the in-camera session and challenged the ruling of the Chair. Council then voted on the ruling of the Chair on this matter.


RULING SUSTAINED Councillor Carlos voted against

11036 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

In the interest of time efficiency, the President confined his remarks by stating that most of his time has been spent dealing with the PEO-OSPE referendum and relationship and with PEO’s finances. He then introduced the guests in attendance at the meeting.

11037 FINANCIAL MATTERS

Councillor Hogan presented an analysis of the 2012 budget. Mr. Allen then reviewed a Financial Viability Report, which provided an analysis of PEO’s performance against key financial and operational metrics. He stated that the report demonstrates that PEO is meeting and exceeding expectations for all of the targets provided and is financially viable and were based on management’s financial statements as of September 30, 2011. He explained the financial statements were prepared using generally accepted accounting principles. Council was provided with capital and operating budgets, prior to the meeting, based on the Council-approved assumptions and Council-approved changes to programs. Council discussed the two analyses presented. Councillor Jones then reviewed proposed budget changes. Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Vice President Chong: That: a) Council approve the budget changes as below:

i) Revenue of $24.5 million. ii) Balanced budget (after reserve and unfunded liability

contributions, below). iii) No fee increases in 2012. iv) Reduce unfunded liabilities yearly by transfer of 5% of

revenue (as an operational expense) until unfunded liabilities are down to nominally zero actuarial projection.

v) Increase reserves yearly by transfer of 5% of revenue (as an operational expense) until reserves are at a target level to be approved by Council. FIC will make reserve level recommendations to Council in due course.

b) the CEO/Registrar restructure the 2012 PEO budget to increase the margin of revenue over expenses (before reserve and


unfunded liability contributions) so that the proposed contribution to reserves and unfunded liabilities can be made.

Council then considered Councillor Jones’ proposed changes and its options; namely, to amend budget assumptions and direct the Finance Committee to revise the budget accordingly, or to complete the Council-approved budget cycle and approve the budgets presented based on the original assumptions. It was concluded that a special meeting of Council be held in December to consider, in greater detail, the budgets based on current assumptions. Council then voted on the main motion.

DEFEATED Recorded vote:

For Against Abstain D. Adams P. Ballantyne R. Huang C. Carlos I. Bhatia C. Moore T. Chong D. Freeman T. Sharma D. Dixon B. Kossta R. Fraser Mary Long-Irwin S. Gupta S. Reid M. Hogan C. Roney R. Jones R. Shreewastav L. King C. Taylor J. Lee M. Wesa P. Quinn R. Willson President Adams requested clarification on whether the Finance Committee is to prepare criteria and a proposed budget based on the above motion to be presented with the 2012 draft budget for consideration. Council re-confirmed its budget assumptions upon which the 2012 draft budget was based and directed the Finance Committee to prepare a final budget based on the Council-approved assumptions for consideration at a special meeting of Council in December 2012.

During the discussion on financial matters, Council observed two minutes of silence in honour of armed forces who have died in the line of duty. 11038 PRACTICE STANDARD – ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

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.


Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Councillor Moore: That Council:

1. Approve the practice standard for Preparation Of Environmental Site Assessment Reports (C-474-2.2, Appendix A);

2. Direct the CEO/Registrar to use PEO’s regulation-making process to amend Regulation 260/08 to add the referenced practice standard.

CARRIED

11039 GUIDELINE – PRACTITIONER REVIEW GUIDELINE

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

President-elect Dixon proposed that the Committees and Task Forces Policy be revised to provide for the automatic removal of a committee/task force member for frequently missing meetings. Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Councillor Moore: That:

1. The Advisory Committee on Volunteers prepare an amendment to the Committees and Task Forces Policy to set out a requirement for: a) the automatic removal of a committee/task force

member should he/she miss three meetings in a row; and/or

b) non-renewal of appointment if the person misses more that 50% of the meetings in his/her current term.

2. the Advisory Committee on Volunteers circulate the proposed amendments to the Committees and Task Forces Policy to all committees, task forces and chapter chairs for consideration.


3. the proposed amendments to the Committees and Task Forces Policy be presented to Council for consideration at its March 2012 meeting.

During the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that chapters be included in the proposed requirement as they experience similar issues with respect to attendance as do committees and task forces . Councillor Carlos stated that a reason for poor attendance is that meetings are frequently held during business hours and suggested that the proposed requirement apply only to meeting held during business hours. Moved by Councillor Carlos, seconded by President Adams: That the main motion be amended by adding the words “during business hours” following the word “meetings” in each of paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b)”.

DEFEATED Council ultimately decided that further consideration was necessary and requested the Advisory Committee on Volunteers to make recommendations to Council at its March 2012 meeting before any consultation is initiated. Moved by Councillor Fraser, seconded by Councillor Huang: That the main motion be tabled.

TABLED

11041 AGM MEMBER SUBMISSIONS

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;


b) At least three weeks before the meeting date, movers shall be invited by Council to attend, where they will be allowed to speak and can explain the spirit of the motion;

c) If the mover or seconder is unable to attend the meeting and hear the decision, the mover and seconder shall be advised of the outcome within a week;

d) If the motion is tabled, information shall be provided to motioners as well as the timeline for its consideration. If the movers disagree with this timeline, the motion shall be heard at the next Council meeting. If Council feels it cannot approve the motion with the information they have, they may vote against the motion.

3. THAT the AGM be moved to a different weekend other than Mother’s Day weekend.

During the ensuing discussion, several Councillors commented that the intent of the first submission was to require a binding referendum and that the recommendation of the Executive Committee was contrary to the spirit of the submission. It was confirmed that any member approval to be sought related only to member governance issues and not to operational issues, such as practice standards, practice guidelines, etc. Moved by Councillor King, seconded by Councillor Carlos: That the main motion be amended by deleting the words in the first submission “and consider member approval” and replacing them with the words “and obtain member approval by binding member referendum”.

CARRIED Council further discussed the submission. Moved by Councillor Roney, seconded by Councillor Fraser: That the main motion be tabled.

CARRIED

The Chair undertook to have the Executive Committee reconsider the first member submission, with input to be obtained from the movers and seconders and staff.


10042 REGIONAL COUNCILLORS COMMITTEE SUBMISSION – ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT BY COUNCIL

Councillor Ballantyne stated the Regional Councillors Committee was seeking approval from Council to hold a binding referendum with respect to the election of the president from among elected Councillors. With the consent of the meeting, proposed motion (a) was considered separately. Moved by Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Taylor: That a binding member referendum be held, at the time of the 2012 Council elections, with respect to the election of the president from among elected Councillors from among elected Councillors . Moved by Vice President Quinn, seconded by President Adams: That the main motion be amended by deleted the words “from among elected Councillors”.

As accepted by the mover and seconded, the motion was further amended by adding the word “direct” following the words “with respect to the” and the words “as opposed to an appointment of the president from among elected Councillors” and words “by the members” following the words “election of the president”. Council then voted on the amendment.

CARRIED Council then voted on the main motion, as amended. That a binding member referendum be held, at the time of the 2012 Council elections, with respect to the direct election of the president by the members as opposed to the appointment of the president from among elected Councillors.

CARRIED Recorded Vote:

All voted in favour except Councillor Kossta Council then considered the balance of the proposed motion. Moved by Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Taylor: That: a) a one-page article for each side of the issue be prepared for

publication in Engineering Dimensions, and accompaniment with the election materials to enable a balanced presentation


to members; b) 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;

c) the assigned Councillors achieve consensus on the referendum question for Council’s consideration at its December 14, 2011 meeting;

d) 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;

e) Members be provided with a forum on which to post their comments and which would be available to all members; and

f) the list of proposed associated regulations, already approved by Council, would continue to be moved through the government should the referendum results be favourable.

In response to a question as to the selection of Councillors who were being proposed to draft articles for Engineering Dimensions, the Chair advised he had selected Councillors who, in his opinion, would fairly present the respective sides of the issue and that his recommendations were open to amendment. Additionally, he explained that the Councillors selected would not draft arguments in isolation but would consult in the preparation of their material. Moved by President Adams, seconded by Vice President Quinn: That the motion be amended to reflect that the President and elected Vice President be appointed to prepare the option allowing members to elect the president from among the elected Councillors.

DEFEATED

Council continued discussion on the main motion. It was agreed that Council should frame the referendum question before considering the motion further. Moved by Vice President Quinn, seconded by President Adams: That the main motion be tabled until such time as a referendum question may be determined.

CARRIED

Council then considered referendum question. Moved by Vice President Quinn, seconded by Councillor Jones:


That the referendum question be as follows: 1. I vote for Council appointing the president from among the

elected members of Council. 2. I vote for the members to elect the president.

CARRIED

Council considered its discussion on the main motion. By consensus, the last two paragraphs of the motion were deleted. In addition, it was agreed that the words “in favour of” and “contrary” as they appear in paragraph (b) be changed to “Council appointing the president from among the elected members of Council” and “for the members to elect the president” respectively. Council then voted on the main motion. That: a) a one-page article for each side of the issue be prepared for

publication in Engineering Dimensions, and accompaniment with the election materials to enable a balanced presentation to members;

b) Past President Freeman and Councillor Roney be requested to prepare the “Council appointing the president from among the elected members of Council” side of the issue and President-elect Dixon and Councillor Fraser to prepare the “for the members to elect the president” side of the issue.

CARRIED

[Secretarial Note: Paragraphs (c) and (d) were removed from the main motion for recording purposes as Council had decided upon the referendum question, as noted above.]

11043 IN-CAMERA SESSION

Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne: That council move in camera.

CARRIED While in camera, Council:

1. Discussed the Executive Analyst position; 2. Discussed the removal of an officer; 3. Ratified the minutes of the 224th Executive Committee

meeting, held August 2011, and moving the approved minutes into open session;

4. Verified the in-camera minutes of the 472nd meeting of Council, held September 2011;

5. Approved branding and a branding budget for 40 Sheppard and, by consensus, approved moving the approved motion into open session;


6. Considered a request from a tenant; 7. Approved a recipient for a 2012 President’s Award; 8. Approved recipients for the 2012 Order of Honour awards; 9. Approved a recipient for the 2012 Sterling award; 10. Received Discipline decisions and reasons; and 11. Received an update on legal actions in which PEO is

involved.

11044 MINUTES – 224th Executive Committee Meeting, August 2011

That the minutes of the 224th meeting of the Executive Committee, held on August 9, 2011, as presented to the meeting at C-474-6.1, Appendix A, be ratified.

CARRIED

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

Councillor Stauch brought forward a concern from the Education Committee (EDU) with respect to the manner in which Council communicates with committees. She explained a situation that occurred with respect to an EDU submission and the manner in which it was dealt with at a recent Executive Committee meeting and the communication back to EDU on the Executive Committee’s decision. She reminded the Executive Committee and Council, on behalf of the EDU, to remember that PEO’s committees are made up of volunteers, giving freely of their time and, if they feel their work is not being valued, they will no longer volunteer. She also requested that feedback to committees on decisions made by the Executive Committee and Council that affect a committee must be complete, so there is no confusion around the reasons for the decision. Councillor Stauch was thanked for the comments. Council agreed to improve its communications with committees on these matters.


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

Moved by Councillor Shreewastav, seconded by Past President Freeman: That the consent agenda be approved.

CARRIED Included on the consent agenda were the following:

1. Ratification of minutes – 224th Executive Committee Meeting – August 2011

2. Verification of minutes – 472nd Council Meeting - September 2011

3. Verification of minutes – 473rd Council Meeting – October 2011

4. Approval of applications for Consulting Engineer designation 5. Approval of Committee/Task Forces Work Plans and Human

Resources Plans 6. 2012 Committee and Task Forces Membership Roster.

11049 ENGINEERS CANADA UPDATE

Ms. Karakatsanis, one of PEO’s directors on the board of Engineers Canada, provided an oral report on recent activities of Engineers Canada. Highlights of her report include:

• A report on the recent constituent associations and presidents meetings:

– committee updates were provided; – a balanced 2012-2013 budget was approved as was

a capital budget;


– a Strategic Plan for 2011-2016 was approved, from which a business plan to match the strategic plan was approved;

– a Governance Task Force was established as an outcome of the Synergy Task Force changes and terms of reference for the task force were approved;

– CEAB evaluated the engineering programs in Turkey and found them to be equivalent to Canadian requirements;

– CEQB developed a syllabus on nanotechnology discipline

– a parliamentary reception was held following the board meeting, at which there was strong attendance by government;

• A report on the Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum, which she had attended along with leaders from different engineering associations and at which the need to raise the engineering profile with the Canadian government was commonly recognized.

Ms. Karakatsanis reminded Council that it has an opportunity to provide input into the Strategic Plan and the budget process on an annual basis and any concerns could be raised during that process.

11050 ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS

Past President Freeman requested that Council consider a proposal to co-sponsor an Engineers Without Borders (EWB) National Conference. She advised that it would first be necessary to waive notice for consideration of this item. Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Councillor Kossta: That notice to consider a proposal to co-sponsor an Engineers Without Borders (EWB) National Conference be waived.

CARRIED

Past President Freeman advised that EWB was holding a National Conference in January 2012 and was seeking sponsorship from Engineers Canada. She explained that engineering associations in British Columbia, Alberta and Nova Scotia had followed PEO’s lead of formally supporting EWB. Having Engineers Canada as a sponsor would permit all the associations to participate and those associations with agreements with EWB to participate at a higher level. Council considered the proposal. During the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that participating by PEO should proceed only if the other Engineers Canada constituent associations also participate.


Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Vice President Chong: That the CEO/Registrar be authorized to participate in the joint sponsorship of Engineers Without Border’s National Conference (to be held January 11-14, 2012) by the profession, at a cost not to exceed $15,000.

CARRIED

11051 CORPORATE LEADERSHIP AT COUNCIL TABLE

Councillor Kossta stated he was asking Council to waive notice to consider, and to consider, inviting other members of the Corporate Leadership Team to attend Council meetings. It was explained that it would be helpful to obtain CLT feedback on issues and for its members to have the background on Council decisions. Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by Councillor Moore: That notice to consider inviting other members of the Corporate Leadership Team to attend Council meetings be waived.

CARRIED Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by Councillor Moore: That members of the Corporate Leadership Team be invited to attend meetings of Council.

CARRIED

11052 COUNCILLOR ITEMS

The Chair inquired if there were any items Councillors wished to bring forward. Councillor Ballantyne expressed his concern regarding the lateness of receiving the agenda material and requested that the pre-arranged schedule be adhered to in the future. He also requested that any material added to the agenda subsequent to the material distribution appear separately in the electronic copy as opposed to a new complete ecopy being distributed. President Adams advised that there would be a special meeting of Council on December 15, 2011 to consider the 2012 budgets and next steps with respect to the PEO-OSPE matter. Councillors were requested to provide any comments on these matters they may have to him or to the CEO/Registrar.


11053 INFORMATION ITEMS

Council received the following written reports for their information:

1. Repeal of the Industrial Exception Task Force – Implementation Plan;

2. Council Liaison Reports; 3. OCEPP Annual Review; 4. Status of Council Resolutions (Work Plan); 5. Regional Congress Open Issues Report; 6. Correspondence; 7. Complaints, Discipline and Licensing Statistics; 8. Report on the Engineer of Record Project; 9. Awards Committee Communications Plan.

Councillor Moore requested that the report on the Status of Council Resolutions include all issues still outstanding, similar to the format of the Regional Congress Open Issues Report. Council was advised that such a report, with cross-referenced motions, would be available for the March 2012 meeting. Council reviewed correspondence from Dr. Elguindi in which he provided comments on the Complaints and Discipline Process Task Force Report. President Adams requested that a reply to Dr. Elguindi be prepared over his signature. Councillor Ballantyne requested that Councillors provide him with their comments with respect to the Awards Committee Communications Plan.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded. These minutes consist of 15 pages and minutes 11035 to 11053. ________________________________________ _______________________________________ D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar



MINUTES – 475th Meeting of Council – December 2011 Purpose: To record that the minutes of the 474th meeting of Council accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the minutes of the 475th meeting of Council, held on December 15, 2011, as presented to the meeting at C-476-5.3, Appendix A, accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. Prepared by: Allison M. Elliot, FCSI, Secretariat Co-ordinator 1. Need for PEO Action To practice best business practices, Council should record that the minutes of the meetings of Council accurately reflect the business transacted at that meeting. 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

C-476-5.3

475th Meeting of Council – December 15, 2011 Page 1 of 9

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: D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair (in person) J.D. Adams, P.Eng., President (in person) D. Dixon, P.Eng., President-elect (in person) D.L. Freeman, P.Eng., Past President (in person) P.J. Quinn, P.Eng., Vice President P. Ballantyne, P.Eng. I. Bhatia, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11060] R.A. Fraser, P.Eng. S.K. Gupta, P.Eng. (in person) R.J. Hilton, P.Eng. R. Jones, P.Eng. (in person) W. Kershaw, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11061(b)] L. King, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11060] B. Kossta (in person) J.K.W. Lee, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11055] C.T. Moore, P.Eng. (in person) C.D. Roney, P.Eng. T. Sharma, P.Eng. (in person) R.K. Shreewastav, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11060] M. Stauch (in person) C. Taylor, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11060] M. Wesa, P.Eng. R. Willson, P.Eng. [minutes 11054 to 11060]

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: K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar S.W. Clark, LL.B., Chief Administrative Officer A.M. Elliot L. Latham, P.Eng. M. Price, P.Eng. C. Mucklestone



CALL TO ORDER The Chair explained the meeting was a special meeting for

the purpose of 2012 financial matters, and next steps with respect to PEO-OSPE relations. Notice having been given and a quorum being present, the Chair called the meeting to order.

11054 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Council reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by Councillor Moore: That: a) the agenda, as presented to the meeting at C-475-

1.0, Appendix A: i) be amended by adding the following items:

1. random publicity; 2. Audit Visual contract; and 3. Reply to chair of London chapter;

ii) be approved, and amended; and b) the Chair be authorized to suspend the regular

order of business. CARRIED

No objections received

11055 2012 RESERVE POLICY

President Adams reviewed a Reserve Policy. He advised that the Finance Committee was proposing an increase in reserves in order to meet new recommended targets for cash and unfunded employee future benefits liability. He explained the recommendation was predicated on a current downturn in global market conditions. Moved by President Adams, seconded by Councillor Gupta: That Council approve the 2012 reserve policy as per C-475-2.1, Appendix A, subject to incorporation of the motions contained in the Finance Committee Memorandum to members of Council of December 8, 2011. Council considered the proposed Reserve Policy for 2012. Moved by Councillor Moore, seconded by President-elect Dixon: That further consideration of the proposed 2012 Reserve Policy be tabled.

CARRIED


For Against P. Ballantyne D. Adams D. Dixon I. Bhatia D. Freeman S. Gupta R. Hilton R. Jones B. Kossta L. King J. Lee P. Quinn C. Moore T. Sharma C. Roney R. Shreewastav M. Stauch C. Taylor M. Wesa R. Willson Council continued its discussion on the need for a Reserve Policy, during which it was suggested that the existing Policy, be extended to December 31, 2011 and monitored throughout the year, with adjustments being made, if required. Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor King: That: a) the 2011 Reserve Policy, with reserves set at $3.5

million, be extended to December 31, 2012; and b) the Policy be monitored throughout the year, with

adjustments being made, if required. Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor King: That the main motion be amended by increasing the amount of the 2012 Reserve Policy to reflect reserves of $4 million.

DEFEATED For Against Abstain D. Adams P. Ballantyne W. Kershaw S. Gupta I. Bhatia R. Jones D. Dixon L. King R. Fraser P. Quinn D. Freeman R. Hilton B. Kossta J. Lee C. Moore C. Roney T. Sharma R. Shreewastav


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 Against P. Ballantyne D. Adams I. Bhatia S. Gupta D. Dixon R. Jones 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

President Adams reviewed a proposed 2012 operating budget, as recommended by the Finance Committee. Moved by President Adams, seconded by Councillor Jones: That Council approve the September operating 2012 budget presented in C-475-2.2, Appendix A, subject to restatement at the April 2012 Council meeting to meet the 2012 Reserve Policy targets , subject to incorporation of the motions contained in the Finance Committee Memorandum to members of Council of December 8, 2011, to meet the revised 2012 Reserve Policy.


Council discussed the proposed operating budget. Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by President-elect Dixon: That the main motion be amended by deleting the words following “Appendix A” to the end of the sentence.

CARRIED For Against Abstain P. Ballantyne D. Adams S. Gupta I. Bhatia R. Jones D. Dixon M. Wesa R. Fraser D. Freeman R. Hilton W. Kershaw L. King B. Kossta C. Moore P. Quinn C. Roney T. Sharma R. Shreewastav M. Stauch C. Taylor R. Willson Moved by Councillor Kossta, seconded by President-elect Dixon: That the main motion be amended by adding the words, “Column A” following the words “Appendix A”.

CARRIED No objections received

Council then voted on the main motion, as amended: That Council approve the September 2012 operating budget presented in C-475-2.2, Appendix A, Column A.

CARRIED

For Against P. Ballantyne D. Adams I. Bhatia R. Fraser D. Dixon S. Gupta


D. Freeman R. Jones R. Hilton L. King W. Kershaw P. Quinn B. Kossta C. Moore C. Roney T. Sharma R. Shreewastav M. Stauch C. Taylor M. Wesa R. Willson

11057 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET

President Adams reviewed a 2012 Capital Budget, as recommended by the Finance Committee. Moved by President Adams, seconded by Councillor Jones: That Council approve the 2012 revised capital budget as set out in C-475-2.3, Appendix A, subject to incorporation of the motions contained in the Finance Committee Memorandum of December 8, 2011, to meet the revised Reserve Policy. Moved by Councollor Gupta, seconded by President Adams: That the main motion be tabled pending review of proposed audio visual equipment purchases and other building renovations.

DEFEATED For Against D. Adams I. Bhatia P. Ballantyne D. Freeman D. Dixon R. Hilton R. Fraser W. Kershaw S. Gupta B. Kossta R. Jones C. Roney L. King R. Shreewastav C. Moore M. Stauch P. Quinn C. Taylor T. Sharma M. Wesa R. Willson Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Councillor Roney: That the main motion be amended by deleting the words, “subject to” to the end of the sentence.

CARRIED


For Against P. Ballantyne D. Adams I. Bhatia S. Gupta D. Dixon R. Jones R. Fraser P. Quinn 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 Council then voted on the main motion as amended: That Council approve the 2012 revised capital budget as set out in C-475-2.3, Appendix A.

CARRIED

For Against Abstain P. Ballantyne D. Adams I. Bhatia R. Fraser D. Dixon S. Gupta D. Freeman R. Jones R. Hilton P. Quinn W. Kershaw L. King B. Kossta C. Moore C. Roney T. Sharma R. Shreewastav M. Stauch C. Taylor M. Wesa R. Willson

11058 2012 BORROWING RESOLUTION

The Chair stated that PEO’s borrowing authority expires on January 31, 2012 and Council was being asked to renew the authority for the coming year.


Moved by President-elect Dixon, seconded by Councillor Jones: That Council: a) approve the borrowing of money upon the credit of the

association by way of: i) an operating overdraft up to an amount not to

exceed CAD$250,000; and ii) use of corporate credit cards with an aggregate limit

not to exceed CAD$120,000. b) in compliance with PEO’s Internal Control Banking

Policy, hereby confirms that this Borrowing Resolution is to expire on January 31, 2013.


11059 ALL CANDIDATES MEETINGS

Mr. Allen stated that Council was being asked to consider holding electronic all-candidates meetings. He advised that such meetings would better engage members in the elections process; would bring members together to engage on issues before an election; would raise awareness of an issue or policy among voters, thereby fostering informed debate and prompt candidates to develop a standpoint on an issue; and would allow for a direct comparison of candidates. Use of electronic meetings may provide an opportunity for candidates to communicate with the broad membership. Council then reviewed a proposed protocol for the holding of such meetings and a proposed schedule, noting there would be one all-candidates meeting for each position. Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Shreewastav: That one electronic all-candidates meeting per Council position being contested be hosted by PEO at 40 Sheppard Ave., as per the protocol set out in C-475-3.0, Appendix A and the schedule set out in C-475-3.0, Appendix B.


Councillors were requested to provide any other comments on the meetings to the CEO/Registrar.

11060 RANDOM PUBLICITY

Vice President Quinn stated that it was his understanding the two articles on the election of the president were not being published in Engineering Dimensions but instead were being included only with the elections insert. He requested that the


articles be moved to the main section of the magazine. The Director, Communications agreed to move the articles to the main section of the magazine.

Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Councillor Kossta: That Council move in camera.


11061 IN CAMERA SESSION

While in camera, Council considered its relationship with OSPE and disposition of the audio visual contract for 40 Sheppard. Also while in camera, Council approved moving the following resolutions into open session: That Council: 1. approve holding meetings with OSPE, on a “without

prejudice” basis, on holistic issues; 2. appoint David Euler as an additional PEO member to the

Joint Relations Committee. There being no further business, the meeting concluded. These minutes consist of six pages and minutes 11054 to 11061. _______________________________________ ______________________________________ D.W. Euler, P.Eng., Chair K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar



CONSULTING ENGINEER DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS Purpose: Under Section 61(2) of Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act, the Consulting Engineer Designation Committee (CEDC) may make recommendations to Council in respect of all matters relating to application for designation as a consulting engineer. The CEDC is recommending that Council approve the following motions. Motion(s) for Council to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) 1. That Council approve the exemption from examinations and the applications for designation as Consulting Engineer as set out in Section 1 of Appendix A of Briefing Note C-476-5.4 presented to the meeting.

2. That Council approve the applications for re-designation as Consulting Engineer as set out in Section 2 of Appendix A of Briefing Note C-476 -5.4 presented to the meeting. 3. That Council decline the applications for designation as Consulting Engineer as set out in Section 3 of Appendix A of Briefing Note C-476 -5.4 presented to the meeting. 4. That Council grant permission to use the title “Consulting Engineers” (or variations thereof) to the firms set out in Section 4 of Appendix A of Briefing Note C-476 -5.4 presented to the meeting. Prepared by: Brian MacEwen, P.Eng., Manager, Registration Origin/Sponsored by: Councilor Santosh Gupta, P.Eng. 1. Need for PEO Action Council needs to accept the recommendations of the Consulting Engineer Designation Committee (CEDC) with respect to the applications submitted for its consideration before the applicants are informed of the PEO’s decision with respect to their application. 2. Proposed Action / Recommendation That Council approve/deny the applications for designation and redesignation 3. Next Steps (if motion approved) The applicants will be advised of Council’s decision with respect to their applications. 4. Appendices

• Appendix A – Report of the Consulting Engineer Designation Committee • Appendix B – Legal Implications

C-476-5.4

476th Meeting of Council – March1-2, 2012 Page 2 of 5

To the 476th Meeting of the Council of Professional Engineers Ontario

Chair: Peter Golem, P.Eng. REPORT OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER DESIGNATION COMMITTEE

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:

# P.Eng. Company Name Address Licence # 1.1 Brisson, Andre Louis Jade Engineers Inc. 19 Baldwin St.

Tillsonburg, ON N4G 2K3 100024703

1.2 Chipps, Steven AMEC Earth & Environmental

3215 North Service Road Burlington, ON L7N 3G2

90556481

1.3 Froese, Amanda Jayne

Meritech Engineering 202-1315 Bishop St. N. Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2

100044355

1.4 Graham, Levi Kenneth

MIG Engineering Ltd. 453 Christina St. N. Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3

100009184

1.5 Schuknecht, Brent Edward

Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates

20 Mural Street Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1K3

90295445

1.6 Tape, William Donald Haddad Morgan & Associates Ltd.

24 Shepherd St. E. Windsor, ON N8X 2J8

100026210

1.7 Wells, Andrew Peter KJA Consultants Inc. 901-85 Richmond St. W. Toronto, ON M5H 2C9

90439860



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:

# P.Eng. Company Name Address Licence # 2.1 Coulter, John

Emerson JE Coulter Associates Ltd.

211-1210 Sheppard Ave. E. Toronto, ON M2K 1E3

9503012

2.2 Craig, Dale Conrad J.L. Richards & Associates Limited

864 Lady Ellen Place Ottawa, ON K1Z 5M2

9701012

2.3 Dedhar, Saleem S2S Environmental Inc. 260-1099 Kingston Rd. Pickering,ON L1V 1B5

11057502

2.4 Dietrich, John Benedict

Peto MacCallum Ltd. 16 Franklin Street South Kitchener, ON N2C 1R4

11588019

2.5 Haddad, Yunis Elra Haddad Morgan and Associates Ltd.

24 Shepherd St. E. Windsor, ON N8X 2J8

17730011

2.6 Hamann, Stephen David

Hamann Engineering Structural Consultants Ltd.

10-151 Bentley Street Markham, ON L3R 3X9

18023010

2.7 Hudec, Ludovit LH Consultants Ltd. 901-55 Delisle Ave. Toronto, ON M4V 3C2

20739504

2.8 Huggins, Norman Douglas

CH2M Hill 255 Consumers Rd. Toronto, ON M2J 5B6

20796017

2.9 Iannuzziello, Angela Genivar Inc. 210-2800 14th Avenue Markham, ON L3R 0E4

21189113

2.10 Irving, Gary Grant Muskoka Engineering 4372 Highway 169 RR3 Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0

21386016

2.11 Johnston, James Genivar Inc. 100-15 Fitzgerald Road Nepean, ON K2H 9G1

22330013

2.12 Lorenzen, James Daniel

Lorenzen Engineering Corporation

234-229 St. Clair Street Chatham, ON N7L 3J4

27397504

2.13 Marcu, Mihail Ion Self-Employed 845 Mewburn Rd. Ancaster, ON L9G 3E4

29038403

2.14 McCluskey, George Canney

Dillon Consulting Limited

1400-130 Dufferin Avenue London, ON N6A 5R2

30034508

2.15 McDowell, George Wilson

G.W. Mcdowell Engineering Ltd.

3555 Ouellette Avenue Windsor, ON N9E 3M3

30301501

2.16 Mitchell, Bruce MacLeod

Infratec Engineering Group Ltd.

2 David Gohn Circle Markham, ON L6E 1A7

90227315

2.17 Nathoo, Alnor Abdulaziz

Peto MacCallum Ltd. 165 Cartwright Avenue Toronto, ON M6A 1V5

33608019

2.18 Palumbo, Peter Vista Engineering Corporation

1968 Guild Road Pickering, ON L1V 1Y1

35273010

2.19 Sorensen, Peter EMS-Tech Inc. 699 Dundas Street West Belleville, ON K8N 4Z2

43678010


2.20 Sutton, Peter

Laughlin Alan Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

49 Coldwater Aod Toronto, ON M3B 1Y8

90444639

2.21 Tassone, Nicola Building Sciences Inc. 1-221 Rayette Road Concord, ON L4K2G1

90262601

2.22 Trudell, Marc Bernard

Sendex Environmental Corp.

417 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 2Z3

47048509

2.23 Webster, Reginald David

The Sernas Group 41-110 Scotia Court Whitby, ON L1N 8Y7

49280019

2.24 Wood, Victor V.A. Wood Associates Limited

24-1080 Tapscott Rd. Scarborough, ON M1X 1E7

51000016

2.25 Zourntos, Peter S. Valdor Engineering Inc. 2-741 Rowntree Dairy Rd. Woodbridge, ON L4L 5T9

90214156

3. The Consulting Engineers Designation Committee (CEDC) has considered the following applications for Designation as a Consulting Engineer and recommends that they be DECLINED.

# P.Eng. Company Name Address Licence # 3.1 Joseph, Jr. Winston Joseph, Winston Jr. 902-1210 York Mills Road

North York, ON M3A 1Y3 100076442

3.2 Markell, Cristopher Alexander

Robert J. Bourgon & Associates Ltd.

600 Glengarry Boulevard Cornwall, ON K6H 6P8

100026118

3.3 Milliken, Bruce Edward

Selectrical Contractors Ltd.

224 North Murray St. Trenton, ON K8V 6R8

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. The Committee recommends to Council that the following 2 FIRMS be granted PERMISSION TO USE THE TITLE “CONSULTING ENGINEERS”, having met the requirements pursuant to Section 68 of O.Reg.941:

#

Company Name

Address

Designated Consulting Engineer(s)

4.1 Infratec Engineering Group Ltd.

2 David Gohn Circle Markham, ON L6E 1A7

Bruce Mitchell, P.Eng.

4.2 MIG Engineering (2011) Ltd. 453 Christina Street N. Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3

Mark Kennedy, P.Eng.


CONSULTING ENGINEER DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS

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.

C-476- 5.4 Appendix B


476tth Meeting of Council – March 1-2, 2012 Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

COMMITTEE WORK PLANS, HUMAN RESOURCES PLANS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE Purpose: To approve committee terms of reference, work plans and human resources plans Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the committee work plans, human resources plans and Terms of Reference as presented at C-476-5.5, Appendices A and B, be approved. Prepared by: Fern Gonçalves, CHRP, Director People Development 1. Need for PEO Action Under Section 3.3 of the Committees and Task Forces Policy, each committee/task force is to prepare an annual work plan and human resources plan for the following year by September 30 each year. One of the roles of Council, under Section 1.2 of the Policy, is to approve the annual work plans, human resources plans and terms of reference. The following committees have submitted the indicated documents for Council approval.

Committee/Task Force Work Plan HR Plan Tof R

Awards Committee -

Joint Relations Committee - -

2. Proposed Action / Recommendation That Council approve the submitted work plans, human resources plans and terms of reference for the indicated committees. 3. Next Steps (if motion approved) The work plans, human resources plans and terms of reference will be posted on Sharepoint and the committees will implement their plans. 4. Appendices

• Appendix A – Awards Committee

i) 2012 Work Plan ii) 2012 Human Resources Plan

• Appendix B – Joint Relations Committee

i) Brifing Note – Joint Relations Committee Revised Terms of Reference ii) Revised Terms of Reference

C-476-5.5

Awards Committee (AWC) WORK PLAN FOR 2012

Approved by Committee: TBD Review Date: January 2012

Approved by Council: TBD Approved Budget: [$TBD] [2012]

Mandate [as approved by Council]:

To advise and make recommendations to Council on the association’s awards program and activities, including the promotion and monitoring of the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) Ontario Professional Engineers Awards (OPEA) Program, Order of Honour (OOH) and External Honours activities to support achievement of the object of the Act, which states, “Promote awareness of the Professional’s contribution to the society and the role of the association.”

Terms of Reference [Key duties]:

1. Assess all eligible nominations for the association’s 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:

1.1 Assess all eligible nominations for the association’s Order of Honour (OOH)

1.2 Assess nominations for the Sterling Award

1.3 Assess all eligible nominations for the Ontario Professional Engineers Awards (OPEA)

1.4 Assess all eligible nominations for the various External Honours Programs

List of recommended nominees for the OOH, Sterling and OPEA Award submitted to Council (and in the case of OPEA, OSPE board) for approval

1.1 Nov 2012

1.2 Nov 2012

1.3 Apr 2012

2.1 Facilitate nominations for potential candidates for all awards programs, including keeping track of high calibre candidates for the OPEA awards, OOH upgrades, and External Honours (by using databases and formally assigning candidates to AWC members)

2.2 Continue to oversee execution of Communication Plan developed in 2011 in order to raise awareness and solicit increased nominations

2.3 Review progress on Communication Plan developed in 2011 and make revisions to it or to the Awards Program nomination processes as required

A balanced and high calibre pool of nominees for all Awards Programs

Ongoing 2.3 June 2012 / Ongoing

3.1 Contribute and provide input into the development of PEO website as it pertains to the Awards Program

PEO website that promotes the Awards Program and is user

Ongoing

C-476-5.5 Appendix A(i)

Committee/ Task Force Members

• Helen Wojcinksi, P.Eng., Chair (since 2011), member since 2007 • Nancy Hill, P.Eng., Vice-Chair (since 2011), OSPE representative, member since 2009 • Jeanette Southwood, P.Eng., Past Chair (2007-2010), member since 2000 • Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng., Council Liaison (2010 (?) -present), member since 2010 • Michael A. Ball, P.Eng., member since 1996-1997, 2000 • Daniel Couture, P.Eng., OSPE representative, member since 2002 • G. Ross Gillett, P. Eng., member since 2000 • Cliff Knox, P.Eng., member since 2007 • Argyrios (Gerry) Margaritis, P. Eng., member since 2006 • John Severino, P.Eng., member since 2009 • Stephen Tsui, P.Eng., member since 2003

Council Liaison:

Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng., member since 2010

Committee Advisor:

Fern Goncalves, Director, People Development Olivera Tosic, Recognition Coordinator

Inter-committee collaboration:

Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) – with respect to recognition programs Regional Councillors Committee (RCC) – Volunteer and employer recognition

Stakeholders: OSPE Staff and OSPE Board of Directors

Engineers Canada Provincial and Federal Government

3.2 Utilize PEO SharePoint and other tools for AWC business

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

Human Resource (HR) Plan – Awards Committee (AWC)

January 2012

Committee: Awards Committee

Date Developed: January 2012

Committee Review Date: Date Council Approved:

Categories Target / Ideal (To meet the needs of

the Committee)

Currently in Place Gap [ST = Short-term Goal LT = Long-term Goal]

Core Competencies • Skills/Abilities • Expertise/Knowledge

• Key objectives and core competencies are listed in Appendix A

• See Appendix A • No gaps

Committee Membership

• 12 members • At least 1 Councillor, 2

OSPE appointees,1 OOH Companion and at least 3 from the OOH list and from the OPEA

• 11 members ( 2 OSPE & 1 Councillor)

• 4 OPEA and 6 OOH ( 2 Companions)

• 1 member

Broad Engagement Career Stage

• At least 1 from every career stage ( i.e. early, mid and late)

• 11 senior in career Majority in Class F

• LT – 1 mid or 1 early

(< 10 yrs) Disciplines & Sectors • At a minimum: 1 from

government, 1from academia, 6 from a wide variety of disciplines and sectors

• Academia, aerospace, automotive, federal / provincial , municipal, private (energy/power, management consulting, legal,

• Biochemical, biotech, nanotech chemical, civil, forensic, electrical, mechanical, metallurgical, environmental

• No gap

Gender / Diversity • At least 1/3 female members

• 3 female and 8 male members

• Female, with full complement

Geographic Representation

• Full geographic representation

• Geographic representation across all regions

CEAB / International Engineering Graduates

• Even split between CEAB & International Engineering Graduates

• 8 CEAB and 3 IEB • No gap

Licensed –vs– Non-licensed

• All P.Engs. • All P.Engs. • Possibly 1 EIT

Volunteer Development Plans • List potential

• Advancement to Vice Chair / Chair / Past Chair

• Vice chair appointed by AWC with expectation he / she will become

C-476-5.5 Appendix A(ii)


January 2012 2

development opportunities

[See Appendix B]

• Lateral move to other committee/task force

• Election to Council • Appointment to

external agencies

Chair and that current Chair will become Past Chair

• For the other roles member self-identify future plans

Succession Planning • Time on Committee

• At least 2 members with 0 to 5 years on committee

• At least 2 members with 5 to 10 years

• New Chair – Jan 2011 • 0 to 5 years = 5 • 5 to 10 years =3 • Over 10 years = 3

Terms of Office: • Chair/Vice Chair • Committee members

• Maximum three (3) years • At least every two (2) years a new member joins the committee


January 2012 3

APPENDIX A

A. Key objectives and core competencies (per the Work Plan)

List top 3–5 Committee Work Plan Outcomes:

1. List of recommended nominees for the OOH, Sterling and OPEA Award submitted to Council (and in the case of OPEA, OSPE board) for approval

List core competencies for each Work Plan outcome:

- Possess a good knowledge of PEO award criteria and selection process - Facilitation, review and evaluation of nomination submissions for OPEA, OOH and Sterling awards programs; independently and then through participation in a structure committee process

2. A balanced and high calibre pool of nominees for all Awards Programs

- Ability to develop relationships with engineering stakeholders to promote awareness of awards programs and solicit increased nominations - Ability to oversee, facilitate and evaluate Awards Program Communication Plan and periodically monitor for effectiveness - Promote and make presentations on the Awards Program at Chapter or PEO events, RCC, other external venues, etc.

3. PEO website that promotes the Awards Program and is user friendly in accessing and completing the nomination processes for the various awards

- Proficient understanding of Awards Program nomination process and best practices used in other programs - Ability to contribute to promotion of Awards Programs, website development and electronic submissions

4. Greater efficiency and easier participation for AWC and PEO members by leveraging technology

- Ability to work with technology such as SharePoint and video teleconferencing

B. Action plan for volunteer recruitment

List top 2 – 3 preferred core competencies

(knowledge, skills, abilities)

List specific attributes

Briefly state

for each core

competency

[ie: development plans for current member(s); request

additional volunteer resources]

how you will meet your needs

Resources

Needed

Target Date

for completion


January 2012 4

Ability to evaluate and monitor Awards Program Communication Program

Facilitated strategic session

June 2012 strategic session

Ability to work with technology such as SharePoint and video conferencing

PEO training sessions PEO IT staff January 2012 AWC meeting; June 2012 strategic session

C. Comments

Briefing Note – Direction


Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng. 1. Need for PEO Action At the June 2011 meeting, OSPE had four senior volunteer representatives at the meeting as it wanted to include its past chair, who no longer serves on the OSPE Board, for continuity purposes. The Terms of Reference is prescriptive and permits only three Board/Council members from each organization to serve on the Joint Relations Committee (JRC). At the December 2011 meeting of Council, chair Euler was added to the JRC as a fourth member. It is necessary to revise the Terms of Reference for the Committee to permit four members from each organization to serve. 2. Proposed Action/Recommendation At the January 24, 2012 meeting of the JRC, the Committee members agreed to recommend the above amendments to the Terms of Reference. 3. Next Steps (if motion approved) The amended Terms of Reference will be adopted once approved by both PEO and OSPE. 4. Peer Review & Process Followed

Process Followed Joint Relations Committee Council Identified Review N/A Actual Motion Review Members of the Negotiating Team and the JRC

5. Appendices • Appendix A – Proposed Revisions to the OSPE - PEO Joint Relations Committee Terms of

Reference

JOINT RELATIONS COMMITTEE – REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE Purpose: To approve revised terms of reference for the Joint Relations Committee Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the Joint Relations Committee Terms of Reference be amended as follows:

1. By adding “within their respective mandates” to the end of the sentence in 1 (a); 2. By deleting section 3.1 (a) in its entirety and replacing it with “The President / Chair

plus three (3) senior volunteers of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers” ; 3. By deleting section 3.1 (c) in its entirety and replacing it with “The President plus three

(3) senior volunteers of Professional Engineers Ontario”; and 4. Adding a new sentence at the end of section 5 to read as follows: “To facilitate frank

conversations, meetings are in camera on a “without prejudice” basis.”

C-476-5.5 Appendix B(i)

January 2008 March 2012 1

OSPE - PEO Joint Relations Committee

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

b) The Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;

of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;

c) The President and two (2) other Councillors three (3) senior volunteers

d) The Chief Executive Officer of Professional Engineers Ontario.

of Professional Engineers Ontario; and

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.

C-476-5.5 Appendix B(ii)

January 2008 March 2012 2

3.2 Term, Substitution of Members

It is intended that members of the Committee be appointed for a term of at least one (1) year in order to facilitate the building of relationships and to provide continuity. Either organization may, at its discretion, substitute another representative from its Executive Committee or Senior Staff, for any meeting at which one of its regularly appointed representatives is unavailable to participate.

4) Meetings

4.1 Frequency - The Committee will hold at least four regular meetings per year, one in each calendar quarter. Additional regular or special meetings may be scheduled at any time with the agreement of the members.

4.2 Chair - Prior to each meeting, one member of the Committee will be designated to act as Chair on an alternating basis between a PEO representative and an OSPE representative.

4.3 Agenda - At least fifteen (15) days prior to each meeting, the Chair will circulate to all members a draft agenda for the meeting.

4.4 Minutes / Proceedings - At each meeting, one member of the Committee will be designated to record minutes of the meeting. These minutes will be circulated to all participants of the meeting within fifteen (15) days of the meeting for review and comment, with a view to producing a final draft for approval at the next regular meeting, with a view to submit a final approved version of the minutes no more than 30 days from the date of the initial meeting.

4.5 Additional Participants - With the agreement of the Committee, other individuals may be invited to participate in any meeting.

5) Authority, Responsibility

The Committee is an informal body with no power to bind either organization, and no accountability to either organization other than as may be expected by that organization of its appointees.

To facilitate frank conversations, meetings are in camera on a “without prejudice” basis.

6) Expenses

6.1 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.



CHANGES TO THE 2012 COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Purpose: To approve changes to Sections 2 (Other Committees Reporting to Council) and 4 (Task Forces) of the 2012 PEO Committees and Task Forces Membership Roster. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That the recommended additions/deletions to the 2012 PEO Committees and Task Forces Membership Roster as set out in C-476-5.6, Appendix A be approved. Prepared by: Fern Gonçalves, CHRP, Director People Development 1. Need for PEO Action It is the role of Council to approve annual rosters of committee and task force members under the Committees and Task Forces Policy, and changes thereto, and to authorize the membership of those volunteers who formally participate on its behalf through membership on committees and task forces. Furthermore, in accordance with PEO’s insurance policy requirements, Council is asked to approve volunteer members of committees and task forces. Council approved a Roster of Committees and Task Forces at the November 2011 meeting. Appendix A sets out:

• Changes to Section 2 (Other Committees Reporting to Council) and Section 4 (Task Forces) of the Roster that require Council approval at this time.

• External appointments that require Council approval. 2. Next Steps (if motion approved) If approved, the newly-appointed and re-appointed members as well as those not re-appointed will be notified accordingly. 3. Peer Review & Process Followed

Process Followed

Committees and Task Forces Policy • Role of Council: #1 – Appoint all committees/task forces.


N/a


N/a

4. Appendices

• Appendix A – Changes to the 2012 Committees and Task Forces Membership Roster.

C-476-5.6

1

Changes to Sections 2 (Other Committees Reporting to Council) and 4 (Task Forces) of the 2012 Committees and Task Forces Roster

476th Council Meeting

Committee and Task Force Appointments:

New members Service Committee Greg Allen, P.Eng. 2012 Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC)

Philip John Smith 2012 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.

Changes in the Committee and Task Force Roster (volunteers):

Changes Service Committee

Michael Chan, P.Eng. 2011 Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) – Chair (re-elected)

Christopher Kan, P.Eng. 2012 Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) – Vice Chair

Nancy Hill, P.Eng. 2012 Complaints Committee (COC) – Chair

Anthony Cecutti, P.Eng, 2012 Complaints Committee (COC) - Vice Chair

Kathryn Sutherland, P.Eng. 2007 Registration Committee (REC) – Chair (re-elected)

Virendra Sahni, P.Eng. 2011 Registration Committee (REC) - Vice Chair

• 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.

Changes in the Committee and Task Force Roster (staff):

Changes Service Committee

Salvatore Guerriero, P.Eng. 2012 Fees Mediation Committee (FMC) - Committee Advisor

Lucia Servejova 2012 Fees Mediation Committee (FMC) – Staff Support


2

Corrections to the Committee and Task Force Roster:

Changes Service Committee Aziz Ahmed, P.Eng. 2008 Professional Standards Committee (PSC) – Guideline

for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation Andrew Bowers, P.Eng. 2008 Professional Standards Committee (PSC) – Guideline

for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation Yogaranee Mahalihgam, P.Eng.

2008 Professional Standards Committee (PSC) – Guideline for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation

Magdy Milad Attia, P.Eng. 2009 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Spiridon Bot, P.Eng. 2006 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Michael Chapman, P.Eng. 2006 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Barry Hitchcock, P.Eng. 1997 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Maged Naguib, P.Eng. 2009 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Leonel Rojas, P.Eng. 2009 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Jian-Guo Wang, P.Eng. 2010 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Committee and Task Force Resignations:

Resigned members Service Committee

Gino Colonico, P.Eng. 2010-2012 Education Committee (EDU)

Wasib Muhammad, P.Eng. 2010-2012 Education Committee (EDU)

Nigel Birch, P.Eng. 2005-2012 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Edmund Lee, P.Eng. 2006-2011 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Hong Jie Liu, P.Eng. 2005-2011 Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)

Edward Poon, P.Eng. 2010-2011 Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force (RIETF)

External Appointments:

Members Service Committee Robert Dunn, P.Eng. 2012 Canadian Engineering Qualification Board (CEQB) (re-

appointed)



APPROVAL OF EXAMINATION PROGRAM AWARDEES Purpose: To approve annual awards for members who have obtained professional engineering licensure in 2011 through the examination program. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) That Council approve the following award to the following examination program candidate:

a) V. G. Smith Award – James Clifton John Main, P.Eng. b) S. E. Wolfe Award – None

Prepared by: Michael R. Price, MBA, P.Eng., Deputy Registrar, Licensing and Finance 1. Need for PEO Action

The Academic Requirements Committee, at its January 20, 2012 meeting, recommended the approval of one winner for the examination award for presentation to Council. The award is to be presented at the 2012 Annual General Meeting (AGM) Luncheon. Council is being asked to approve the awardee at this time to allow for coverage of the award in the March/April edition of Engineering Dimensions and to provide the winner with as much advance notice of the luncheon as possible. This year’s nominee for the V. G. Smith Award

is James Clifton John Main, P.Eng.

Mr. Main became a member of PEO on December 14, 2011. A 1994 graduate of the Fanshawe College Mechanical Engineering program and a 2008 graduate of the McMaster University B.Tech. – Manufacturing Engineering Technology program, he successfully completed a total of seven technical exams with an average of 78% and his three highest scores were 98%, 85% and 84%. There were no eligible candidates in 2011 for the S. E. Wolfe Award

.

See Appendix A for the current policy regarding the Smith and Wolfe Awards.

2. Proposed Action / Recommendation That Council approve the recommended winner of the V. G. Smith Award.

3. Next Steps (if motion approved) The award recipient will be announced as part of the coverage of the March Council Meeting and the 2012 PEO Annual General Meeting in the March/April edition of Engineering Dimensions and will be invited to the Annual General Meeting Luncheon.

C-476-5.7

of 3

4. Peer Review & Process Followed

Process Followed

N/A


N/A


N/A

5. Appendices

• Appendix A – Current Policy

of 3

SMITH AND WOLFE AWARDS

Current Policy

PEO Council policy provides for professional engineering licensure via PEO’s 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 association’s 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 association’s 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.




LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR APPOINTMENTS Purpose: To inform Council of the renewal of Lieutenant Governor Appointee to Council. No motion required

Prepared by: Allison Elliot, Secretariat Co-ordinator 1. Status Update The following individuals have been re-appointed to Council by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council 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 Copies of their appointments are attached as Appendix A.

C-476-6.1

aelliot

Text Box




ENGINEERS CANADA UPDATE Purpose: To provide Council with an update on Engineers Canada activities No motion required An oral report on Engineers Canada activities will be provided at the meeting.

C-476-6.2

Briefing Note - Information


ENGINEERS CANADA GLOBALIZATION WORKSHOP Purpose: To provide information as a result of Engineers Canada’s workshop. Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry) no motion required Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng. – CEO/Registrar The attached documents are the result of your participation in the Globalization Workshop held on May 5, 2011, in Ottawa. The first document (Appendix A) is the facilitators report “The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on the Regulation in Canada”. This document is the summary report. It provides an outline of the workshop, a synopsis of the presentations and a record of the table discussions answering the questions that were asked as well as other comments. The second document (Appendix B) is a brief companion document to the Follow Up Comment Table. This document provides background on the workshop, the process undertaken and outlines the next steps in developing an action plan for the International Committee. The third document (Appendix C) is the Globalization Follow Up Comment Table. This table lists all the comments, collated into three groups: education, practice and regulation. Three Task Groups will be formed by Engineers Canada to use the comments from the workshop and other information provided to carry out a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats analysis (SWOT). The analysis will allow the International Committee to focus its work plan to address relevant issues so that up to date information and recommendations can be provided to the Engineers Canada Board, the constituent associations, Board committees, our Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum partners, and others as required. Part of the work will be to organize the three Task Groups to work on the impacts on education, practice and regulation. Engineers Canada will be looking for a number of volunteers in each of the three areas to assist in this work. 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

C-476-6.3

ENGINEERS CANADA THE GLOBALIZATION OF ENGINEERING

EDUCATION AND PRACTICE: IMPACTS ON REGULATION IN CANADA

SUMMARY REPORT

Ottawa, Ontario May 5, 2011

Groupe Intersol Group

205 Catherine, Suite 300 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1C3

[email protected] Tel: 613.230.6424 Fax: 613.567.1504

www.intersol.ca

aelliot

Text Box


Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada i

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 Canada’s 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, Queen’s University identified current variants in engineering education, and provided

Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada ii

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.

Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Welcome .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Theme 1: Stage Setting ................................................................................................ 1 Mobility of Canadian Engineers ................................................................................................................. 1 European Environment Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 US - US Licensure: Current Issues, Future Challenges ............................................................................ 3 Question and Answer Period ..................................................................................................................... 3

Theme 2: Federal Government Initiatives on International Mobility ......................... 4 Canada’s Trade Agenda ............................................................................................................................ 4 Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities - International Relations Committee ................................... 5 Table Discussions – International Trade Issues ........................................................................................ 6

Theme 3: Education ...................................................................................................... 8 International Engagement at the University of British Columbia ................................................................ 8 Engineering Education and Globalization .................................................................................................. 9 Table discussions – Engineering Education ............................................................................................ 10

Theme 4: Practice Issues ........................................................................................... 12 International Engineering: Implications for a Canadian Industry.............................................................. 12 Globalization and the Procurement of Engineering Services................................................................... 13 Table discussions – Practice Issues ........................................................................................................ 13

Workshop Wrap-Up ..................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A – List of Participants .............................................................................. 16

Appendix B – Agenda ................................................................................................. 17

Appendix C – Summary of Workshop Feedback ...................................................... 18

Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology ACE Architect’s Council of Europe APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada CALA Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities CEAB Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board CELF Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum CETA Canada-EU Trade Agreement DFAIT Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada EMF EIT Engineering intern training programs EMF Engineers Mobility Forum EU European Union FEANI European Federation of National Engineering Associations FIDIC International Federation of Consulting Engineers FTAs Free trade agreements MRAs Mutual Recognition Agreements NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NCEES National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying NSERC Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada OAA Ontario Association of Architects QBS Quality-based selection RAIC Royal Architectural Institute of Canada TILMA Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement UIA Union Internationale des Architects

Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada 1

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 Canada’s 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 day’s 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.

THEME 1: STAGE SETTING

MOBILITY OF CANADIAN ENGINEERS Presenter: Dick Fletcher, FEC, P.Eng Chair, International Committee, Engineers Canada Dick Fletcher outlined key challenges of globalization for engineers and provided an overview of related international agreements. He also addressed the ways in which Engineers Canada assists in the development of mobility agreements for engineers and its level of involvement in the international engineering community. The challenges of globalization for Canadian engineers include issues such as dealing with different levels of government in Canada as well as different educational systems, quality assurance programs and licensing systems worldwide. Mr. Fletcher noted that the mobility of Canadian engineers is an important political issue and that Canadian engineers, and Canadian engineering degrees, have an excellent reputation worldwide.


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.

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW Presenter: John Power, BE, C.Eng. FIEI Director General, Engineers Ireland John Power provided an overview of Engineers Ireland, the European Union, regulation of engineers in Europe, education requirements and engineers’ mobility in Europe. He opened his presentation with a short video highlighting the state and global impact of Ireland’s economy and business sector. Engineers from Ireland work in both Europe and North America. Engineers Ireland has 24,000 members, representing all engineering disciplines. The organization registers all engineering professionals in Ireland and holds statutory authority to grant titles. Engineers Ireland also contributes extensively to the international community. The European Union (EU) consists of 27 member states, each with its own culture, history, economy and regulatory approach; this makes it challenging to create and consistently implement common standards or agreements. The type and extent of regulation systems varies from country to country in Europe (e.g. some countries have strong regulations while others have little or no regulations). Mr. Power suggested that, despite the wide variation in regulatory approaches in the EU, high engineering standards are being maintained, in part due to competitive and market regulation as well as a strong ethics among engineers. A range of practices also exists regarding the designation of professional status for engineers. In general, Engineers Ireland advocates rigorous standards to qualify for a professional designation (e.g., honours degree, professional experience and a professional interview). Mr. Power also emphasized the need for continuing professional development for engineers. It is critically important to maintain high levels of expertise and skills to meet the demands of changing technology. Mr. Power highlighted some of the ongoing activities in Europe to enhance the mobility of professional engineers. For example, an engineerING card is being implemented in Europe. It is intended to be a central record of an


engineer’s 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.

US - US LICENSURE: CURRENT ISSUES, FUTURE CHALLENGES Presenter: Jerry Carter, Executive Director National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Jerry Carter provided an overview of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), current issues around licensure and its mobility in the U.S. and key global challenges being faced by NCEES. NCEES is a non-profit corporation comprised of members from state and territorial licensing boards that oversee engineers and surveyors. In total, NCEES has 69 member boards. Professional engineers are designated through a combination of education, experience and examination. Mr. Carter noted that the NCEES recently voted to increase the level of education required for a professional engineering designation to “master’s or equivalent.” Debate is continuing to determine the meaning of “equivalent.” Mr. Carter noted the importance of mobility in the engineering profession. The NCEES continues to help create mobility of engineers across state lines. NCEES exams are mobile from one state to another thus allowing an individual engineer to take the exam once only to work in different states. The NCEES Records Program also supports the transfer of records (e.g., transcripts, references, exam results) between states to facilitate the receipt of a license in another state. NCEES is also involved in international activities. It is a signatory to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) agreement and the Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF). It is not a signatory to the Washington Accord as this falls under the mandate of ABET (which focuses on accreditation). NCEES exams are offered in Alberta as well as a number of international locations (e.g., Seoul, Saudi Arabia). Mr. Carter noted that most state boards consider Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) engineering graduates to have the required depth and breadth of education to be considered for exams and licensing. In closing, Mr. Carter shared his appreciation of the partnership that exists between NCEES and Engineers Canada.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD 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.


What types of recommendations does the NCEES make to state boards when conducting credential evaluations? Mr. Carter responded that NCEES reviews an individual’s credentials and provides an advisory statement to a state board for its consideration. The statement includes a detailed description of the individual’s 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 master’s degrees in Canada are different than those in the U.S. (e.g., in Canada, master’s 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.

THEME 2: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES ON INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY

CANADA’S TRADE AGENDA Presenter: Michelle Cooper, Director, Services Trade Policy Division Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Michelle Cooper provided an overview of Canada’s trade agenda, the key principles of its trade negotiations approach and highlights of the Canada-EU trade negotiations. Ms. Cooper noted that Canadian engineers are highly respected members of the international community in a wide range of sectors (e.g., construction, oil and gas, etc.). And, while the engineering profession is not a federal jurisdiction, the federal government recognizes the importance of the engineering profession and supports an ongoing relationship with the profession. The services sector is important to the Canadian economy. It is a key driver in current trade negotiations (e.g.., regulatory and mobility barriers in the sector). The Canadian Global Commerce Strategy is being developed to increase market access and to create stability for Canadian engineers who are working abroad. Ms. Cooper pointed out that Canada is party to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with several countries including the European Union, and the U.S. and Mexico (NAFTA). Canada is also in the process of negotiating new FTAs and other agreements such as the World Trade Organization’s Doha negotiations (in which Ms. Cooper noted the involvement of the engineering profession). Several key principles guide Canada’s position in cross-border trade in services including: market access (including temporary entry); provisions on mutual recognition; and disciplines on domestic regulations. Improvement of labour mobility is an overarching goal for Canada. It is primarily addressed through FTA chapters related to cross-border trade in services and temporary entry. Temporary entry is typically granted on a project-by-project basis for short periods of time. MRAs are a means of recognizing the qualifications of service providers to enhance mobility. The department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) creates a framework and sets some key requirements for MRAs and then turns negotiation over to regulators and other relevant parties to complete the agreement. Work is ongoing to negotiate the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA). Ms. Cooper indicated that negotiations are proceeding by profession and she touched on the impacts of CETA on Canadian engineers. She encouraged Engineers Canada to continue to communicate with the federal government and the provincial/territorial governments to help inform the trade agenda, to improve understanding of on-the-ground labour and mobility barriers faced by engineers, and to inform government about regulatory changes affecting import and export activities. Lastly, she strongly encouraged the maintenance of relationships between DFAIT and Canadian engineering associations, as well as Canada’s engineering and government counterparts in other parts of the world to continue to advance Canadian interests in international trade.


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.

CANADIAN ARCHITECTURAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE Presenter: Gerrie Doyle, OAA, MRAIC International Relations Committee Chair, Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) Past President The Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) represents 11 Canadian architectural licensing authorities. Ms. Doyle presented eight of CALA’s 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.

- Architect’s 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 (UIA’s 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 Canada’s 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.


TABLE DISCUSSIONS – INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES Participants worked in table groups to answer three discussion questions: 1. What are the trade issues that you believe should be the profession’s highest priority for resolution? 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? 3. How should regulated professions work together to influence international trade negotiations? Each group shared its responses in plenary and in a workbook that was submitted at the end of the workshop. Responses from the plenary discussion and the workbooks are summarized below. 1. What are the trade issues that you believe should be the profession’s highest priority for resolution?

The following trade issues were highlighted as priorities for resolution: - 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.

- Build relationships and education with respect to regulatory requirements. - 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-the-ground 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.

- Address the challenges presented by changing demographics in Canada. - Are we chasing a phantom? Are we at trade capacity already?

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: - Involve Engineers Canada, provincial engineering associations, provinces/territories, accreditation bodies

and educators in a national discussion on this issue. Develop networks to maintain relationships and promote knowledge sharing between the engineering profession and the federal and provincial governments (at political, bureaucratic and regulatory levels). Another table suggested the creation of a unified approach among provincial bodies (e.g., through constituent associations or a national organization). Such approaches could also provide opportunities for the profession to educate officials on how the industry and profession works.

- Support Engineers Canada’s 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.

- Provide ongoing information (based on practitioners’ experiences) to DFAIT on a regular basis. - Involve Canadian High Commissions in communications. - Identify a source of funding for international negotiations. - 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.

- Establish a national licensing framework with an agreed upon baseline standard. - 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: - Creating a common voice, and working together on country-specific agreements. - 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. UBC’s 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 project-based 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


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.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND GLOBALIZATION Presenter: David Strong, P.Eng. Professor and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Chair in Design Engineering, Queen’s University David Strong focused his presentation on identifying current variants in engineering education, providing examples of non-traditional programs, offering some global perspectives and challenging participants to think about some questions regarding engineering education and globalization. Currently, there is a wide range of engineering education pedagogical methods used in bachelor programs ranging from traditional learning to “active” learning to problem-based learning and project-based learning. Mr. Strong highlighted four types of non-traditional learning currently being delivered at the university level:

- Distance learning (offered in very few accredited programs); - “Integrated” or general engineering whereby the program offers a general engineering education

(typically drawn from mechanical, electrical, civil and chemical engineering); - “Flexible” engineering programs that provide a student with a bigger choice (less core content); and - “Global” engineering education where globalization is meant to be a bigger focus in the program (e.g.,

dual degree programs, exchange programs, placements). The University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland was raised as a potential model: it has an undergraduate Department of Design, Manufacture and Engineering Management which includes a global design course as well as the Global Innovation Management Masters Program.

Mr. Strong continued his presentation with a look at the current realities in engineering and suggested that several “hard questions” need to be asked. For example, where are the needs of the profession heading? What are the risks of harmonized accreditation standards? Where is the line between formal education and engineering training in practice? How much can and should we expect of an undergraduate engineering program? In closing, Mr. Strong noted that encouraging multidisciplinary and global perspectives will better prepare graduates for the engineering profession. Despite the need to improve, progress is being made and Canada has some good examples of innovative engineering education. Global awareness is increasing – especially among students – and this will help continue the advancement of innovative learning. Following his presentation, Mr. Strong responded to questions and comments from participants. He was asked to comment on whether CEAB is driving education and if so, whether it is doing a good job. He noted that accreditation drives education to a certain extent. He also suggested that further discussion with engineering practitioners around the world is needed to explore the best approach for improving education. In response to a question regarding the best way to incorporate global engineering curriculum into a Canadian university, Mr. Strong suggested that one way could be the introduction of a graduate level course that is linked to the University of Strathclyde, and creating more undergraduate course work with a focus on cultural and social diversity. A participant wondered whether educational outcomes should be determined by the engineering profession or by learning institutions. Mr. Strong felt that they should be set through the joint efforts of the profession and institutions in order to ensure that outcomes address the realities faced by practicing engineers. Professional practice input is important for helping students understand what they need to do to put learning into practice.


TABLE DISCUSSIONS – ENGINEERING EDUCATION Participants worked in table groups to answer three discussion questions: 1. What are the concerns the profession may have when considering certain alternative learning approaches for

engineering students? 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.)? 3. To what degree should we work to harmonize our education standards with other countries? Each group shared its responses in plenary and in a workbook that was submitted at the end of the workshop. Responses from the plenary discussion and the workbooks are summarized below. 1. What are the concerns the profession may have when considering certain alternative learning

approaches for engineering students? - 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.


- 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.

- Institutions should be the innovators; bringing ideas and proposals to CEAB. - 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. - The following approaches were highlighted:

- Create linkages between institutions (e.g. for exchanges). CEAB supports innovative approaches to building such linkages.

- Eight tables explicitly supported the use of exchange programs; one table noted support for exchange programs over satellite campuses. Post-education exchange programs were also suggested by a table (e.g., exchange program with global “customers” and foreign company office).

- Satellite campuses were specifically supported by three tables. One table felt they could be a good source of future employees for Canadian companies wishing to enter the international market.

- Internships, distance education, multi-national degrees and incorporating cross-cultural working skills in education were also noted as potentially effective approaches.

- Design projects that take place in other countries and use methods such as video conferencing or projects based on ‘real world’ problems to deliver learning (e.g., Stratchclyde model).

- Build on successes that focus on hands-on involvement (e.g. Engineers Without Borders). 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 Canada’s 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).


- 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.

THEME 4: PRACTICE ISSUES

INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CANADIAN INDUSTRY Presenter: John Boyd, PhD, P.Eng. John Boyd provided a brief overview of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC)1

Mr. Boyd made four main points in his presentation:

, 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.

1. As Canadian engineers, our primary responsibility is to protect Canada’s 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).


GLOBALIZATION AND THE PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES Presenter: Andrew Steeves, P.Eng. EXP 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 client’s 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 other’s 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.

TABLE DISCUSSIONS – PRACTICE ISSUES Participants worked in table groups to answer two discussion questions:

1. What are the industry’s key issues regarding the international practice of engineering? 2. How should our profession work to help resolve these issues?

Each group shared its responses in plenary and in a workbook that was submitted at the end of the workshop. Responses from the plenary discussion and the workbooks are summarized below.


1. What are the industry’s 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 Canada’s 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 engineer’s 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.

2. How should our profession work to help resolve these issues? Participants suggested undertaking the following actions or activities to help resolve the issues identified above: - 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.


- 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. Fletcher’s 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 Canada’s 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 day’s 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.


APPENDIX A – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 David Adams Pat Quinn Frank Denton Mark Tokarik Gerrie Doyle Gordon Griffith

Kim Allen Kathyrn Sutherland Kris Dove Charles Boisvert John Hepburn Chantal Guay

Paul Ballantyne Robert Wilson Lloyd Henderson Chris Zinck David Strong Jerry Carter

Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Ishwar Bathia David Euler Darryl Ford Jean-Bernard Ratté Nathan Lysons

Thomas Chong Michael Price Gillian Pichler George Roter Zaki Ghavitian

Denis Dixon Paul Amyotte Jim Smith Andy Robinson Maria Pantazi-Peck

Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Bob Dony Johnny Zuccon Len White Darrel Danyluk John Power Ken McMartin

Diane Freeman Digvir Jayas Louis Tremblay John Plant Michele Cooper

Santosh Gupta Dick Fletcher Paul Blanchard Jacinta O’Brien Andrew Steeves Will Meyer

Table 10 Table 11 Facilitation Team, Intersol Group Catherine Karakatsanis Michael Mastromatteo Tina Maki Claude Laguë John Boyd Alana Lavoie

James Lee Howard Brown Louise Quesnel Michael Ball Stephanie Price

Frank Van Gool Facilitator

Kerrianne Carrasco Report Writer


APPENDIX B – WORKSHOP PROGRAM


APPENDIX C – SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

Workshop Evaluation Form (39/60)

Stro

ngly

agr

ee

Agr

ee

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly

di

N

o op

inio

n

Doe

s no

t app

ly

WORKSHOP

1. The anticipated length of the workshop was realistic based on the planned agenda

12 25

2. Going into the workshop, I understood what was expected of me as a participant, and what was expected of the other participants

4 26 8 1 1

3. The agenda was followed and the time allocated to each item 12 22 3 1

4. All participants were able to take part and contribute meaningfully to the discussions

15 21 1

5. All participants listened carefully to each other 15 22 2

6. Deliberations were conducted in a thoughtful and objective manner

14 22 1 2

7. All aspects of issues were explored 2 19 13 2 1

8. Conflicts were openly explored and constructively managed 3 19 3 1 9

9. My participation contributed to the outcomes achieved 6 21 3 5 1

10. Do you believe there is value in holding another such workshop in the future?*

20 10 3 3

11. Overall, I am satisfied with the workshop and feel that my time was well spent

19 17 1 1

Comment under question 10:

• More work need on this topic • No-work with the information received today first • A workshop – yes, rather than a series of presentations


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.


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 4 = 17/39 3 = 2/39 2 = 2/39 no rating = 2/39 • 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. In your opinion, what was MOST relevant or valuable about the workshop?

• Presenting to DFAIT a picture of the value of engineering • The presentation by various people from different perspective. Inclusion of people from DFAIT • Range of presentations – structure covered most relevant topics • Good meeting ground for different sources of opinion • Interactions and diversity of participants • Good overview of international engineering profession • Divergence of opinion • Internationalization of the profession • The engineering profession worldwide has significant challenges but solution can be found • Session 1 – info in stage setting (perspective from other jurisdictions) – Session 2 – Federal

Government initiatives – Session 3 – was also very good – Session 4 – All very good • The opening presentations nicely set the scene, all of the topics and talks were very informative • Net working opportunities sharing experiences with others • Consensus of maintaining our standards. Some great info from architects • Open conversations through breaks, lunch, sidebar conversations, etc. • Bringing people together • John Power presentation on Ireland and Europe • UBC Globalization and David Strong presentations. Jerry Carter was good too! • Private sector perspective • Question/answer – plenary sessions – table discussions • Government initiatives on international mobility • Understanding of agreements and expectations • Connecting with others, who have different backgrounds and perspective, and sharing ideas. Too

little time was allotted for this.


In your opinion, what was LEAST relevant or valuable about the workshop? • The limitation on discussion especially in the AM • Not enough exploration of the MRA issue • Andrew Steeves was disappointing. Sacked relevance to day to agenda • Depth of education study • Program accreditation because it’s a whole other issue • I liked it all • Keep of the good work. I look forward to the collected outcomes • A emphasis on accreditation vis-à-vis procurement issues • Education standardized exams • Pitch for Ireland tourism • Government perspectives • Presentation by architect’s association • QBS • This workshop had be to be driven by Qualifications Board, Accreditation Board • The fact that this was not really a workshop. It was a series of presentations within little time to

discuss the issues. This was, at best a seminar series. If anything like this is considered for future, it should be re-balanced to allow much more time for dialogue among participants – this is where Engineers Canada will achieve the greatest input this comment is in no way meant to diminish the presentations made today.

Other suggestions or comments:

• 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 Canada’s 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.

Globalization Workshop – Follow Up

3-Feb-2012 Page 1 of 29

aelliot

Text Box



3-Feb-2012 Page 2 of 29

Issue:

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 Canada’s 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 3 of 29

Engineers Canada Strategic Elements –

A. Conduct activities in support of constituent associations' regulatory activities (admissions, practice, discipline and enforcement). 1. In conjunction with Canada's higher education institutions and in the context of globalization, making sure that engineering education and accreditation are current and

relevant. 2. Represent Canada in international engineering activities and identify opportunities for consideration by the constituent associations to maintain or enhance international

mobility for Canadian engineers. 3. Facilitate the completion of the Canadian Framework for Licensure to ensure uniformity of standards for admission, practice, discipline and enforcement and enhance

mobility for all occupational categories of engineers. B. Conduct activities in support of constituent associations' efforts to ensure that all people practising engineering are licensed.

1. Support the efforts of the constituent associations to integrate engineering students into the profession. 2. Support constituent associations' efforts to increase awareness of, and support for the profession and the P.Eng. License among engineers, employers, academia,

engineering graduates, government, industry leaders, and the public. C. Conduct activities to influence government policy and decision-making on matters of interest to constituent associations.

1. Improve Engineers Canada’s ability to influence public policy 2. Become a resource for government for engineering-related matters 3. Raise the awareness of key national stakeholders about the value of self-regulation to society and for public safety and why it is relevant to today's world. 4. Raise Engineers Canada’s public profile

D. Create and utilize strategic partnerships and alliances in support of constituent associations' interests.

1. Maintain close working relationships and create strategic alliances with other national and international organizations (engineering-related or other professional regulatory-related agencies) in order to bring relevant and timely information to constituent associations and to advance constituent associations' interests on international standards, mobility frameworks, etc.

2. Facilitate communication and exchange of information among the provincial/territorial women in engineering organizations with respect to shared concerns, issues and initiatives.

3. Facilitate communication and exchange of information among the constituent associations and work to engage other national partners with respect to diversity and equity concerns, issues and initiatives and in particular indigenous people.

E. Maintain a governance structure that allows effective conduct of Engineers Canada business and the full engagement of constituent associations.

1. Complete the renewal process with the full participation and support of constituent associations. This process will be centered on the development of a process of consultation, engagement and consensus decision-making that will be used to bring forward specific policies related to governance.

2. Develop and implement a sustainable financing model. 3. Implement an internal communications strategy to educate and inform constituent associations about the role, activities and value of Engineers Canada.


3-Feb-2012 Page 4 of 29

List of acronyms: ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology - United States (www.ABET.org) ACEC Association of Consulting Engineering Companies-Canada (www.acec.ca) AIT Agreement on Internal Trade (www.ait-aci.ca/)

APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (www.apec.org) APEC Engineer Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Engineers Registry (www.washingtonaccord.org) AUCC Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (www.aucc.ca) CA Constituent Associations (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/co_cms.cfm) CCTT Canadian Council of Technologists and Technicians (www.cctt.ca) CEAB Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_accreditation.cfm) CEEA Canadian Engineering Education Association (www.ceea.ca) CELF Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum CEQB Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_qualifications.cfm ) CEO-Group Chief Executive Officer Group CFES Canadian Federation of Engineering Students 9 CFL Canadian Framework for Licensure (see Appendix A) CNNAR Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators 9 CTI Commission des titres des ingenieurs (www.cti-commission.fr) DFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (www.international.gc.ca) DLC Deans Liaison Committee ENAEE European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education EGAD Engineering Graduate Attribute Development EIT Engineer in Training EMF Engineers Mobility Forum (www.washingtonaccord.org) EUGENE European and Global Engineering Education Eur-ace European Accredited Engineer (label applied to European accredited engineering programs) EWB Engineers without Borders (www.ewb.ca) GRPA Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee IC International Committee IEA International Engineering Alliance (www.washingtonaccord.org) HEI Higher Education Institutions MRA Mutual Recognition Agreement NCDEAS National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science OAS Organization of American States (www.oas.org) PIEVC Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee PPE Professional Practice Exam QBS Qualifications-Based Selection TASC The Alliance of Sector Councils (www.councils.org/) TILMA Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (www.tilma.ca) UPADI Pan American Union of Engineering Organizations (www.upadisede.org/indexingles.htm) WA Washington Accord (www.washingtonaccord.org) WFEO World Federation of Engineering Organizations (www.wfeo.net) WFEO-CEE World Federation of Engineering Organizations – Committee on Engineering and the Environment (www.wfeo.net/environment)

http://www.abet.org/�

http://www.acec.ca/�

http://www.ait-aci.ca/�

http://www.apec.org/�

http://www.washingtonaccord.org/�

http://www.aucc.ca/�

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/co_cms.cfm�

http://www.cctt.ca/�

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_accreditation.cfm�

http://www.ceea.ca/�

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_qualifications.cfm�

http://www.cti-commission.fr/�

http://www.international.gc.ca/�


http://www.ewb.ca/�


http://www.oas.org/�

http://www.tilma.ca/�

http://www.upadisede.org/indexingles.htm�


http://www.wfeo.net/�

http://www.wfeo.net/environment�


3-Feb-2012 Page 5 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.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES

1. What are the trade issues that you believe should be the profession’s 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?


ENGINEERING EDUCATION

1. What are the concerns the profession may have when considering certain alternative learning approaches for engineering students?


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?


PRACTICE ISSUES

1. What are the industry’s key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?


2. How should our profession work to help resolve these issues? Workshop comments 70 to 78 are in response to this question.

3. How should our profession work to help resolve these issues?



3-Feb-2012 Page 6 of 29

Table Discussion Comments Status Suggested Lead Role in

Further Development Strategic Element Proposed Future Action

Education Task Group 6. 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?)

The issue of reciprocity can occur at two junctures: equivalence of education and equivalence at the practice level.

At the education level, reciprocity is achieved through mutual recognition agreements between Engineers Canada and other jurisdictions, such as the MRA between Engineers Canada and ABET, and through the Washington Accord, which recognizes the substantial equivalence of accreditation systems and of engineering graduates from accredited engineering programs. Engineers Canada is a signatory to the WA.

International Cttee CEAB CEQB CEO Group

A CEAB will continue to support reciprocity at the international education level, according to an established set of priorities, and per the AB’s mandate to provide advice to the Engineers Canada Board of Directors on international developments. International Committee will continue to support reciprocity at the international practice level on the basis of bilateral agreements, including providing input to the ongoing changes to the EMF and APEC Engineer registries, and participation in educational initiatives such as those promoted by OAS (Organization of American States) and UPADI (Pan American Union of Engineering Organizations).


3-Feb-2012 Page 7 of 29



34. 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. 37. In addition, participants were concerned about ensuring that alternative learning approaches are appropriately monitored to meet degree requirements. 74. 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.

The CEAB accredits undergraduate engineering programs that meet or exceed educational standards acceptable for professional engineering registration in Canada. The AB sets accreditation criteria, including for learning outcomes, but does not specify how programs are delivered. Setting of criteria is done in consultation with the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science through the Deans Liaison Committee, on behalf of the Constituent Associations of Engineers Canada. A number of interpretive statements have been established by the AB to assist programs to comply with the criteria, including statements about alternative methods of valuing program curriculum1

and about distance learning.

CEAB NCDEAS CFES CEEA

A CEAB will continue to monitor and enhance the effectiveness of its criteria and procedures to ensure that the quality of engineering education in Canada remains high and accommodates the evolution of teaching and learning for the benefit of the profession. CEAB will continue to consult regularly with the NCDEAS, through the Dean’s Liaison Committee, in order to ensure understanding of educational issues and challenges and timely responsiveness. Engineers Canada will continue to support the EGAD (Engineering Graduate Attribute Development) project for the benefit of engineering programs.

1 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

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2010.pdf�


3-Feb-2012 Page 8 of 29



36. 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 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. Engineers Canada has provided financial and in-kind support to the NCDEAS EGAD (Engineering Graduate Attribute Development) project, which is intended to develop resources and training for assessing graduating student attributes in undergraduate engineering programs for the purpose of improving the quality of engineering education in Canada. The CEAB, through its Policies and Procedures Committee, has been collaborating with the EGAD group and the Deans Liaison Committee.

CEAB NCDEAS CEEA CFES

A CEAB will continue to liaise with the NCDEAS on education-related matters, including innovative approaches to learning.


3-Feb-2012 Page 9 of 29



39. The practice of engineering should be more fully integrated into educational programs.

Accreditation criteria require elements related to the practice of engineering in every accredited engineering program, as follows: • 3.1.8 Professionalism

• 3.1.9 Impact of engineering on society

and the environment • 3.1.10 Ethics and equity

• 3.3.4.4 Culminating design experience

• 3.3.5.1b The impact of technology on

society • 3.3.5.1e Health and safety

• 3.3.5.1f Professional ethics, equity

and law • 3.3.5.1g Sustainable development

and environmental stewardship Beyond the accreditation requirements listed above, it is not the role of Engineers Canada to dictate curriculum content or delivery methods.

CEAB NCDEAS CEQB

A CEAB will continue to ensure that curriculum content that provides students with an understanding of professional topics is integrated into the curriculum of all accredited programs. NCDEAS will continue to be responsible for incorporating professional practice curriculum content in accredited programs.


3-Feb-2012 Page 10 of 29



35. 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.

The issue of specific modes of learning is not within the mandate of Engineers Canada. Specifically, the CEAB does not prescribe how engineering curriculum should be developed; only what the curriculum should contain. Engineering programs are free to experiment with different approaches to student teaching and learning. The Accreditation Board is cognizant of the evolution of engineering education and has criteria which, for example, provides alternatives for valuing curriculum (k-factor) that is delivered using non-traditional (not via lectures) methods, and has issued a number of Statements of Interpretation that explain to how the AB evaluates specific aspects of engineering programs, including their delivery. A recently developed and Statement of Interpretation explains the AB’s perspective on distance learning..

NCDEAS CEEA CFES

X Participate into the discussions and foster discussions

38. Finally, they noted that innovation can be expensive and wondered how it would be funded in the current environment of fiscal restraint.

Not within the mandate of Engineers Canada.

NCDEAS

X


3-Feb-2012 Page 11 of 29



40. The engineering community should be open to change and aware of trends in the global environment including knowledge of best practices worldwide. 46. Be open to change and aware of trends and changes in the international context. 48. New approaches should be subject to continuous monitoring to gauge success, gaps and best practices. 49. Create linkages between institutions (e.g. for exchanges). CEAB supports innovative approaches to building such linkages. 50. Eight tables explicitly supported the use of exchange programs; one table noted support for exchange programs over satellite campuses. Post-education exchange programs were also suggested by a table (e.g., exchange program with global “customers” and foreign company office). 51. Satellite campuses were specifically supported by three tables. One table felt they could be a good source of future employees for Canadian companies wishing to enter the international market. 52. Internships, distance education, multi-national degrees and incorporating cross-cultural working skills in education were also noted as potentially effective approaches.

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. Canadian engineering faculties actively pursue opportunities for international student exchanges and faculty members collaborate internationally on research. Involvement in IEA as well

International Committee CEAB CEEA

A The CEAB will continue to participate at an international level through the Washington Accord and will continue to conduct international activities in accordance with an established set of priorities. The CEAB will continue to provide advice to the Engineers Canada Board of Directors regarding international issues in respect of engineering education. The CEAB will continue to discuss issues related to engineering education, accreditation, quality assurance, and international trends, and any other such matters of mutual concern with the DLC of the NCDEAS.


3-Feb-2012 Page 12 of 29



41. 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. 44. 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. 53. Design projects that take place in other countries and use methods such as video conferencing or projects based on ‘real world’ problems to deliver learning (e.g., Strathclyde model).

Revisions to the CEAB transfer credit regulations, to facilitate international exchanges, are underway (currently in consultations with Constituent Associations and with NCDEAS).

CEAB NCDEAS CAs

A CEAB will finalize new transfer credit regulations that recognize the various international agreements and MRAs to which Engineers Canada is a signatory.

43. The engineering profession should support leaders who propose innovative programs.

Engineers Canada provides financial support to the EGAD project that allows the NCDEAS to develop tools and techniques for us by all engineering programs to demonstrate compliance with the CEAB’s 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.

Engineers Canada CEAB

D Engineers Canada through CEAB will continue to support the EGAD (Engineering Graduate Attribute Development) project for the benefit of engineering programs. Engineers Canada, through its Award Committee, will continue to recognize excellence in engineering education through the annual awards program.

45. Institutions should be the innovators; bringing ideas and proposals to CEAB.

The CEAB maintains ongoing dialogue with the NCDEAS through the DLC (Dean’s Liaison Committee) about issues related to engineering education. In addition, Engineers Canada staff participates in the semi-annual meetings of the NCDEAS.

CEAB NCDEAS

A CEAB will continue to liaise with the NCDEAS on education-related matters, including innovative approaches to learning.


3-Feb-2012 Page 13 of 29



42. 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.


NCDEAS X

47. 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.


NCDEAS X

54. Build on successes that focus on hands-on involvement (e.g. Engineers Without Borders).

Begin to work with EWB. Engineers Canada Constitute Associations

B


3-Feb-2012 Page 14 of 29



55. 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 Canada’s jurisdictional issues). 56. 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).

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.

CEAB

A The CEAB will continue to participate at an international level through the Washington Accord and will continue to conduct international activities in accordance with an established set of priorities. We should mention our efforts to benchmark the Eur-ace program compared to WA.


3-Feb-2012 Page 15 of 29



57. 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. 58. 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.

IEA and to a lesser extent WFEO are discussing education standards.

66. How can we develop competencies in Canadian engineers so they can easily undertake international work?

At the education level, CEAB Graduate Attribute criteria are intended to assure that graduates of Canadian Engineering programs have the skills, abilities and knowledge needed to become successful engineering practitioners. International exchanges, which are accommodated by the CEAB regulations on transfer credits and by exchange offerings by HEIs (higher education institutions) can serve to promote development of competencies needed to practice internationally.

CEAB NCDEAS CEEA CFES EWB IC Bilateral Agreements

A The CEAB will continue to discuss issues related to engineering education, accreditation, quality assurance, and international trends, and any other such matters of mutual concern with the DLC of the NCDEAS. IC continue to maintain existing international agreements and participate with key organizations


3-Feb-2012 Page 16 of 29



Practice Task Group 1. 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. 62. 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? 76. 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 issue of QBS is the subject of an Engineers Canada position statement2

In the interest of public safety, innovation and lower life cycle costs for public works, the federal government should adopt regulations requiring that qualifications-based 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.

, as follows:

ACEC GRPA Cttee

C The GRPA (Government Relations and Public Affairs) Committee of Engineers Canada will ensure accuracy and currency of the QBS position statement.

2 http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_qualificationbasedselection.pdf

http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_qualificationbasedselection.pdf�


3-Feb-2012 Page 17 of 29



10. Ensure robust accountability for international engineers offering services in other countries. 59. How do we best understand, respect and meet local engineering standards and codes of practice, and business practices?

Engineers Canada’s Constituent Associations have oversight responsibility for the practice of engineering in Canada. Engineers Canada has signed mutual recognition agreements at the professional level and is a signatory to the EMF (Engineers Mobility Forum) Registry and the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Engineer Registry. These registries create the framework for the establishment of an international standard of competence for professional engineering, and then empower each member organization to establish a section of the International Professional Engineers Register. The registries facilitate movement of engineering practitioners among signatory jurisdictions

International Cttee CEO Group

A CEO Group will continue development of the Canadian Framework for Licensure (see Appendix A). International Committee will continue to support reciprocity at the international practice level, including providing input to the ongoing changes to the EMF and APEC Engineer registries. IC needs to monitor this in discussions with DFAIT etc. Agreements need to consider the next step of performance monitoring and discipline. At this point it is not a priority discussion particularly as many other economies don’t have the legal responsibility of our CA’S.

14. Address the challenges presented by changing demographics in Canada.

Engineers Canada needs to be aware of future trends, such as revealed in the labour market study, conducted in collaboration with the CCTT (Canadian Council of Technologists and Technicians), with support from the federal government. The study provides a snap shot of the engineering market place to 2018.

Engineers Canada Staff Women in Engineering Committee First Nations Joint Committee

B Engineers Canada will monitor actual versus predicted trends and provide periodic updates to the labour market study. For Engineers Canada’s committees and task forces.

8. 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-the ground in another country).

The outsourcing of engineering services is not within the mandate of Engineers Canada. As an issue for further development, other members of the CELF (Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum), particularly ACEC (Association of Consulting Engineering Companies-Canada) are best positioned at the national level. Provincially, it may be in the purview of the local Constituent Association or.

ACEC X


3-Feb-2012 Page 18 of 29



60. 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 Canada’s best knowledge or practices to international work? Should we apply Canadian standards locally? Is this ethical or professional?

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. Help move this issue internationally through our work with WFEO and IEA and UPADI.

International Committee CEO Group CEO Group CEQB Syllabus and Discipline and Enforcement

A CEQB continue to foster alignment of Constituent Associations who will continue to administer the PPE (Professional Practice Examination) as a means to test knowledge about ethics for the purpose of licensure in Canada.

63. 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? 72. 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.

Engineers Canada has embraced innovation and innovative practices on a number of fronts. The issue of Research and Development and Innovation Spending is the subject of an Engineers Canada position statement3

.

Engineers Canada’s PIEVC (Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee) is developing policies and tools to aid professional engineers to address potential impacts of climate change on the design, construction, operations and maintenance of public infrastructure. Engineers Canada chairs the World Federation of Engineering Organizations Committee on Engineering and the Environment, which seeks the development, application, and enhanced understanding of environmentally sustainable engineering practices that address the impact of climate change and mitigate the risks of natural disasters. Could also be done with CELF.

GRPA Cttee PIEVC WFEO CEE CELF

D Engineers Canada will communicate more widely its perspective and contributions to innovation.

3 http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_rdinnovation.pdf


3-Feb-2012 Page 19 of 29



61. 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?


ACEC CELF

X

65. How can we promote the importance of partnering with credible local experts?


ACEC CELF

X

68. 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?

Considered within the CFL CEO Group Engineers Canada

A Continue the development of CFL and in particular the element of jurisdiction This is of importance to CA’s so it is an item that needs discussion probably at the?

70. 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.


ACEC

X

71. 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.

Engineers Canada is a member of the CELF (Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum), an information-sharing body.

CELF D

73. 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.

75. Proactively educate clients, politicians, supply officers, professional engineers and educators on the full cost analysis / life cycle approach.


ACEC

X


3-Feb-2012 Page 20 of 29



78. Take action even before the “exact solution” has been found.

We are – e.g. this workshop to discuss the issues and identify potential actions

Z

Regulation Task Group

2. 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. 3. Another table encouraged consideration of priorities regarding the next countries/markets to approach for agreements. 10. Ensure robust accountability for international engineers offering services in other countries. 18. Provide ongoing information (based on practitioners’ experiences) to DFAIT on a regular basis 21. 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.

Engineers Canada staff, including the CEO and the Director, Professional and International Affairs, actively monitor the actions of DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). Staff have made themselves available as a resource to DFAIT during negotiations and related activities. In tandem with interaction between Engineers Canada staff and DFAIT negotiators and other personnel, there is also a need for interaction at the provincial level, so that there is an understanding of the impacts of federally-negotiated trade agreements on provincial authorities and responsibilities. Engineers Canada’s Constituent Associations have oversight responsibility for the practice of engineering in Canada

International Cttee CEO Group Engineers Canada Staff GR messages International Cttee CEO Group

A

At the federal level, Engineers Canada staff will continue to monitor status of trade discussions and negotiations, including maintaining existing relationships with DFAIT trade negotiators and establishing new relationships as needed. At the provincial level, identify chief provincial negotiators and support, through the CEO Group, Constituent Associations’ efforts to liaise with these individuals to ensure full knowledge of issues related to the engineering profession, including self-regulation.

CEO Group will continue development of the CFL


3-Feb-2012 Page 21 of 29



25. Creating a common voice, and working together on country-specific agreements. 28. Providing the engineering professions’ input, with leadership from Engineers Canada, into key elements of agreements (e.g., regulators, profession, and business). 31. Using the Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum (CELF) to Address Trade Issues 73. 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.

A

Additionally, Engineers Canada will consider adding bench strength to discussions with DFAIT by enlisting support from CELF partners.

4. Build relationships and education with respect to regulatory requirements.

A main strategic element and function of Engineers Canada is to build relationships and communicate the regulatory requirements for licensure in Canada and ideally align the outcomes. This function is also undertaken at the Provincial level by the Constituent Associations. Internationally, the President of Engineers Canada, the CEO, representatives from International Committee, and members of the CEAB who conduct substantial equivalency visits and other international efforts, all contribute to disseminating information about regulation of the engineering profession.

Engineers Canada Staff CEO Group International Cttee CEAB

A Seek out / accept invitations to speak at events that will allow Engineers Canada to explain the nature of self-regulation and the requirements for engineering practice in Canada.


3-Feb-2012 Page 22 of 29



6. 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?)

The issue of reciprocity can occur at two junctures: equivalence of education and equivalence at the practice level.

At the professional level, reciprocity is achieved through mutual recognition agreements between Engineers Canada and other jurisdictions, such as the MRA between Engineers Canada and CTI (Commission des titres des ingenieurs). There are also two registries: the EMF (Engineers Mobility Forum) Registry and the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Engineer Registry. Intended to create the framework for the establishment of an agreed international standard of competence for professional engineering, and then empower each member organization to develop a process to establish a section of the International Professional Engineers Register. The registries are intended to ultimately facilitate movement of engineering practitioners among signatory jurisdictions through bilateral.

International Cttee CEAB CEQB CEO Group

A CEAB will continue to support reciprocity at the international education level, according to an established set of priorities, and per the AB’s mandate to provide advice to the Engineers Canada Board of Directors on international developments. International Committee will continue to support reciprocity at the international practice level on the basis of bilateral agreements, including providing input to the ongoing changes to the EMF and APEC Engineer registries, and participation in educational initiatives such as those promoted by OAS (Organization of American States) and UPADI (Pan American Union of Engineering Organizations).

9. 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. 22. Establish a national licensing framework with an agreed upon baseline standard.

The Canadian Framework for Licensure, once completed, is intended to ensure uniformity of standards for admission, practice, discipline and enforcement and enhance mobility for all occupational categories of engineers.

CEO Group A CEO Group will continue development of the CFL.


3-Feb-2012 Page 23 of 29



7. Understand and address differences in domestic regulation rules (e.g., in bureaucratic procedures; cost of licensure). 30. Establishing a national standard agreement that we will not lower our standards. We must agree to respect three principles: public safety; health; individual competency. 64. How can we further address jurisdictional issues in Canada that are limiting our international mobility?

The Canadian Framework for Licensure, which is an initiative of the CEO Group and currently under development, is intended to enhance equity, consistency, fairness and timeliness of the services of engineering regulators. These changes will result in enhanced national and international mobility through uniform qualifications recognition, admissions, and discipline and enforcement procedures.

CEO Group A CEO Group will continue development of the CFL.

5. 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.

Although Canada is the third largest net exporter of engineering services4

, Canada still needs immigration to support continued growth.

Each Constituent Association has provisions in their legislation / procedures to allow for temporary work via special licensing provisions The limitations may be applicable to the scope of practice or to a specific project. Efforts have also been made to facilitate the initiation of the licensure process for immigrants to Canada. Some CAs will accept and process Applications for Licence from applicants who have not yet obtained approval of their immigration application from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

CEO Group B CEO Group to continue development of ways and means to integrate internationally educated and trained engineers within the profession in Canada through the CFL. Engineers Canada will assist the constituent Associations with helping potential immigrants become familiar with all aspects of the engineering profession in Canada. IC staff to include this topic in ongoing discussions with DFAIT

4 Engineers Canada Labour Market Study


3-Feb-2012 Page 24 of 29



13. Address the concern that provincial agreements with groups outside Canada can create a “back door” access to practice in Canada. 24. Provide specific communications to address the risk of “back door” entry into the Canadian market.

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. Engineers Canada, the International Committee, and the CEO Group are aware of the potential impact of MRAs on individual CAs. CEO Group is considering quality assurance for CAs.

CEO Group B CEO Group will continue development of the CFL, which will provide a framework for harmonizing requirements among the CAs.

12. Continue to build bilateral relationships between professions while larger “framework” discussions are taking place, especially in complex jurisdictions. 27. Learning from other regulated professions (e.g., the issues they face; similarities or differences with engineering). 29. Developing a framework to guide collaboration among professions while respecting the differences between them. 33. 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, and industry).

Engineers Canada has signed mutual recognition agreements at the professional level and is a signatory to the EMF (Engineers Mobility Forum) Registry and the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Engineer Registry. Engineers Canada has established relationships with other regulated professions in Canada and with other organizations that share a similar mandate to that of Engineers Canada, in part to share experiences and knowledge related to international issues.

International Cttee Engineers Canada Staff

D Per the Business Plan, EC staff will continue to build on what has been established with the Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators (CNNAR) and will continue to participate in The Alliance of Sector Councils (TASC) to facilitate sharing of information with other sector and sector-like councils. Continue to participate with key international organizations.


3-Feb-2012 Page 25 of 29



19. Involve Canadian High Commissions in communications.

Engineers Canada staff has identified an opportunity to advise Canadian High Commissions about the requirements for entry to the engineering profession.

Engineers Canada Staff B Engineers Canada will assist with development of a portal of information (“one-stop shop”) where potential immigrants can become familiar with regulation of the engineering profession in Canada. The availability of this portal will be communicated to Canadian High Commissions. Continue to visit Canadian Embassies in foreign countries while at meetings.

23. Learn from the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement) is an agreement between Alberta and British Columbia. Under TILMA, Alberta and British Columbia agreed to reconcile or mutually recognize occupational standards for those occupations regulated in both provinces where the scope of practice was similar. As of April 1, 2009, more than 100 occupations, including engineers

CEO Group

, have full labour mobility between Alberta and BC. Professionals and skilled tradespersons certified in one province will be recognized as qualified in both. Under TILMA, engineers licensed in Alberta will not need to go through material examinations or training to practice in B.C., and vice versa.

B CEO Group will continue development of the CFL, which will provide a framework for harmonizing requirements among the CAs. Recognition of the impacts of TILMA will be taken into consideration as part of the CFL development process.

Engage trade lawyers as appropriate to assist.


3-Feb-2012 Page 26 of 29



16. Involve Engineers Canada, provincial engineering associations, provinces/territories, accreditation bodies and educators in a national discussion on this issue. Develop networks to maintain relationships and promote knowledge sharing between the engineering profession and the federal and provincial governments (at political, bureaucratic and regulatory levels). Another table suggested the creation of a unified approach among provincial bodies (e.g., through constituent associations or a national organization). Such approaches could also provide opportunities for the profession to educate officials on how the industry and profession works.

The Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee provide strategic direction in respect of promoting dialogue between Engineer Canada and the federal government.

Engineers Canada Staff C


3-Feb-2012 Page 27 of 29



17. Support Engineers Canada’s 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. 32. Providing public support for negotiations and communicating the value of negotiations to the public. 69. 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.

77. The Engineers Canada Government Relations Committee could play a larger role.

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.

GRPA Cttee Engineers Canada Staff

C Seek out / accept invitations to speak at events that will allow Engineers Canada to explain the nature of self-regulation and the requirements for engineering practice in Canada. The GRPA Committee has initiated creation of a resource list that allows individual engineers to be identified for the purpose of acting as spokespersons on specific topics and as ambassadors for the profession. Engineers Canada staff will maintain and update the speakers list.

26. Initiating regular dialogue among professions, and involving students and policy bodies in the discussion (e.g., Engineering Intern Training programs (EITs)).

Engineers Canada has established relationships with other regulated professions in Canada and with other organizations that share a similar mandate to that of Engineers Canada, in part to share experiences and knowledge related to international issues. Engineers Canada has a long-standing and positive relationship with CFES (Canadian Federation of Engineering Students), representatives of which participate at Board of Directors and CEAB meetings.

Engineers Canada Staff

D Per the Business Plan, EC staff will continue to build on what has been established with the Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators (CNNAR) and will continue to participate in The Alliance of Sector Councils (TASC) to facilitate sharing of information with other sector and sector-like councils. Engineers Canada will continue to invite CFES to attend Board of Director and CEAB meetings. CELF communications


3-Feb-2012 Page 28 of 29



67. How can we more effectively and accurately assess an international engineer’s experience?

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.

CEQB CAs CEO Group IC

A Continue the development of tools for the benefit of CAs to assess experience CEO Group will continue development of the CFL, which will provide a framework for harmonizing requirements among the CAs. This will include consideration of approaches for valuing international experience. Bi Laterals, EMF, APEC.

OTHER

11. Internally, focus on creating value for export (this includes services and goods).


ACEC CELF

X

15. Are we chasing a phantom? Are we at trade capacity already?


Z

20. Identify a source of funding for international negotiations.

Not within the mandate of Engineers Canada.(in relation to reciprocity agreement s funding is available through DFAIT and staff to monitor)

Z


3-Feb-2012 Page 29 of 29

Appendix A


The Canadian Framework for Licensure is a dynamic model for all Canadian engineering regulators to enhance their ability to regulate the practice of professional engineering in order that the public interest is better served and protected. The Canadian Framework for Licensure will develop foundational documents to help engineering regulators across Canada improve their legislative framework to enhance equity, consistency, fairness and timeliness of services. These changes will result in enhanced national and international mobility through uniform qualifications recognition, admissions, and discipline and enforcement procedures. The Canadian Framework for Licensure focuses on the essential elements of the regulated engineering profession in Canada (“the elements”) and develops guiding principles and supporting language for each one. These elements will form a national framework which is available for the engineering regulators to amend legislation or make changes to bylaws or regulations. The guiding principles for each element will be developed collaboratively by the engineering regulators with extensive consultation to identify best practices and details for use by the engineering regulators. The Canadian Framework for Licensure will allow our governments and the engineering regulators to develop and implement their shared vision for the 21st century.

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.

aelliot

Text Box


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

Briefing Note –Information


STATUS OF COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS Purpose: To provide Council with an update on the status of projects underway and policy work planned by Council for completion during the current Council year. No motion required Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng. CEO/Registrar

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.

C-476-6.4



REGIONAL CONGRESS OPEN ISSUES REPORT Purpose: To update Counci l on issues raised at Regional Congresses No motion required

Prepared by: Al l ison El l iot – Secretar iat Co-ordinator 1. Background At its August 2010 meeting, the Executive Committee, by consensus, agreed that a Regional Counci l lors Report, sett ing out chapter issues that were approved at each Regional Congress to go forward to Regional Council lors Committee, be included as an information item on future Council agenda. This was in response from a Counci l lor for the establishment of a chapter issues record. A complete report wil l be provided fo l lowing the Regional Congress scheduled for Frebruary 25th.

C-476-6.5



CORRESPONDENCE Purpose: To provide Council with relevant correspondence.

Prepared by: Allison Elliot- Secretariat Co-ordinator 1. Current Policy At the request of the President, copies of relevant correspondence are a standing item on Council’s agenda. 2. Appendices

• Appendix A - Letter to Monte Kwinter, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation re: OSPE Act

• Appendix B - Letter from Ann Johnston, Ph.D. student regarding OCEPP

C-476-6.6

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 PEO’s 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

AElliot

Text Box


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 PEO’s 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,

Kim Allen, P.Eng., FEC CEO/Registrar Copies: Hon. John Gerretsen, Attorney General

Lorenzo Berardinetti, Parliamentary Assistant David Adams, P.Eng., President, PEO

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON PEO’S OPPOSITION TO BILL 15 Many OSPE members are not professional engineers In fact, about one-third of OSPE’s 10,000 members are not licensed. Based on a survey of Ontario's 75,000 professional engineers, 90 per cent of them believe a member of the public might well believe that a member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers is actually a professional engineer. Professional engineer is a protected title for public safety The term “professional engineer” is used at least eight times in Bill 15. In the Professional Engineers Act, the term “professional engineer” is a protected title. This is to ensure that the public can be assured that someone who calls themselves a professional engineer is properly qualified and licensed. The use of this term in Bill 15 in relation to an organization whose members are not all professional engineers conflicts with PEO’s public interest mandate and will be confusing to the public. Furthermore fewer than 12 per cent of professional engineers think it is appropriate for the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers to use the term “professional engineer” in its name. At the start up of OSPE, PEO granted permission for the use of the term in the organization’s name on the basis that OSPE require all its members to be professional engineers. However, this is no longer the case. How can it be in the public

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 PEO’s 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: Catherine Shearer-Kudel on behalf of OCEPP ArticlesTo: Allison ElliotCc: Josie Rubino (OCEPP)Subject: FW: Engineering, policy and the extractive sectorDate: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:11:47 AM

Hi Allison: Forwarding this for correspondence for the next Council meeting package. I suggested sheconsider submitting her comments as a letter to the editor of Dimensions. It’s good to knowthere’s support and interest out there for the centre! Cheers,Catherine From: Anne Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:09 PMTo: OCEPP ArticlesSubject: Engineering, policy and the extractive sector Hello, I have just discovered this organization…what a delight! I enjoyed Erica Lee’s excellent article onher work in Buenos Aires; she is a fellow Queen’s alumna and worked with my Master’s supervisorCaroline Baillie, who began the Waste for Life project there. I plan to spend this weekend readingall the back issues, as the focus of the organization captures my research interests. I can’t wait tolearn 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 atQueen’s University. My home department in Mining. I am interested in government relationswith industry and with industry’s perception in the general public. I would like to both attend theMay conference and contribute to the Policy Engagement Journal. I look forward to hearing fromyou. Thank you Anne JohnsonPhD Student in Cultural StudiesRobert M. Buchan Department of MiningQueen’s University

mailto:/O=PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO/OU=PEO/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=CSHEARERKUDEL

mailto:/O=PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO/OU=PEO/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=ARTICLES

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

AElliot

Text Box




COMPLAINTS, DISCIPLINE AND LICENSING STATISTICS Purpose: To provide a statistical report to Council regarding Complains, Discipline and Licensing No motion required

Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng. CEO/Registrar 1. Need for PEO Action

• Standing report was requested at the September 2009 meeting of Council.

2. Appendices

• Appendix A – Complaints Statistics • Appendix B - Discipline Committee Statistics • Appendix C – Licensing Statistics

C-476-6.7

COMPLAINTS & INVESTIGATION STATISTICS March 2012 Council Meeting Report

Complaints & Investigations 2010 2011 2012 (to Feb. 8) # Complaints filed 101 61 7

Investigation in progress at previous year-end

-- 88 108*

Total files handled -- 149 115

Total current active files N/A 100 113

Total files disposed of by COC 81 49 2

Complaint Matters Referred to DIC2

21 2 0

Matters not Referred, no other action

41 34 2

Matters not Referred - other actions by COC

19 13 0

Minimum # Days -Complaint Filed to Investigation Complete1

28 83 NA

Median # Days -Complaint Filed to Investigation Complete1

230 273 NA

Maximum # Days -Complaint Filed to Investigation Complete1

668 746 NA

1For investigations completed in the calendar year. 2 2009/2010 figures are based on date COC decision to refer is made. *Reflects adjustment to 2010 files in progress at yr-end figure. Glossary of Terms: Complaints filed – Complaints filed with the Registrar in a calendar year. Investigation Complete – Completed Complaint Summary document sent to the

respondent.


DISCIPLINE STATISTICS – March 2012 Council Meeting Report Discipline Phase 2009 2010 2011 2012 (up to

January 16)

Matters Referred to Discipline 11 18 6 0

Hearings Commenced 9 8 13 0

Hearings Completed 8 11 16 0

Matters Pending (Caseload) 20* 25 23 23

Pre-Hearing Conferences Held 9 12 27 0

Written Final Decisions Issued 8 14** 12** 0

*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.


PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIOP. ENG. STATISTICS

2011

C-476-6.7Appendix C

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTALMembers on Register Beginning 74,174 74,147 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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)

Deceased (38) (31) (44) (18) (26) (13) (19) (28) (27) (22) (49) (20) (335)

Deletions - Regular (171) (73) (91) (169) (69) 0 (1) (342) (314) (174) (103) (88) (1,595)

- Retirees (79) (3) (5) (141) 5 2 1 (90) (80) (67) (3) (1) (461)

Total Ending 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

Members on Register Summary Full Fee Members 60,884 61,077 60,995 61,144 61,393 61,577 61,615 61,558 61,619 61,628 61,610 61,656 61,656 Partial Fee Remission - Retired 11,626 11,634 11,687 11,561 11,587 11,637 11,679 11,581 11,642 11,618 11,616 11,677 11,677 Fee Remission - Health, Post Graduate and other 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

Total Membership 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

Membership Licence Applications Received 331 241 396 303 280 283 233 300 305 294 276 242 3,484Applicationsr Rec'd FCP 83 37 57 35 34 39 165 193 146 175 205 46 1,215

Female Members on Register - Beginning 6,663 6,704 6,739 6,768 6,794 6,846 6,864 6,910 6,904 6,927 6,946 6,970 6,663 New Female Engineers 41 35 29 26 52 18 46 (6) 23 19 24 17 324

. Total Female Engineers 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

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIOENGINEER IN TRAINING - STATISTICS

2011

C-476-6.7Appendix C

JAN 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

New Recordings 93 75 130 64 119 118 107 80 128 96 130 110 1,250

New Recordings FCP 176 59 56 134 41 43 48 165 196 145 192 207 1,462

Reinstatements 15 15 11 19 12 20 15 8 9 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)

Non Payment (115) (71) 2 (157) 0 (64) 0 0 (83) (46) 0 (140) (674)

Deceased 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Ending 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

Female Recording on

Register

Beginning 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

New Female Recordings 1 (8) 8 (16) 18 14 19 (7) 9 25 41 29 133

Total Female Recordings 1,249 1,241 1,249 1,233 1,251 1,265 1,284 1,277 1,286 1,311 1,352 1,381 1,381

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIOCERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION - STATISTICS

2011

C-476-6.7Appendix C


C of A Holders - Beginning Regular 4,549 4,553 4,536 4,568 4,575 4,580 4,586 4,605 4,621 4,641 4,656 4,683 4,549 Temporary 62 63 61 61 61 63 64 59 60 59 59 63 62

Sub Total 4,611 4,616 4,597 4,629 4,636 4,643 4,650 4,664 4,681 4,700 4,715 4,746 4,611

New Certificates Issued Regular 37 28 49 38 32 28 38 40 37 22 50 30 429 Temporary 2 0 1 0 4 1 1 2 1 0 4 1 17

Sub Total 39 28 50 38 36 29 39 42 38 22 54 31 446

Reinstatements Regular 2 0 1 1 2 3 1 4 6 1 3 1 25 Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 2 0 1 1 2 3 1 4 6 1 3 1 25

Deletions Non Payment (35) (45) (17) (31) (28) (25) (20) (27) (23) (8) (26) (14) (299) Dormant/Suspension 0 0 (1) (1) (1) 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 (2) (6) Temporary (1) (2) (1) 0 (2) 0 (6) (1) (2) 0 0 (1) (16)

Sub Total (36) (47) (19) (32) (31) (25) (26) (29) (25) (8) (26) (17) (321)

Total Ending Regular 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 Temporary 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

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIOCONSULTANTS - STATISTICS

2011

C-476-6.7Appendix C


Consultants

Beginning of Period 1,250 1,242 1,241 1,236 1,236 1,229 1,225 1,213 1,208 1,202 1,206 1,206 1,250

New Designations 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 8 0 24

Reinstatements 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4

Deletions (8) (5) (5) 0 (7) (8) (15) (5) (6) (5) (8) (3) (75)

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

PEO STATISTICSAPPLICATIONS RECEIVED

1996 - 2011

C-476-6.7Appendix C

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

JANUARY 508 184 322 124 278 328 341 539 440 364 316 308 372 336 393 414FEBRUARY 225 100 186 187 157 260 222 260 345 259 319 257 234 338 276 278MARCH 268 142 239 187 165 136 234 169 298 340 316 272 345 379 373 453APRIL 339 135 248 149 206 225 277 279 304 269 291 280 381 294 239 338MAY 557 166 220 68 213 403 299 394 425 270 298 293 278 279 303 314JUNE 1,781 240 1,142 165 157 158 220 221 337 264 273 279 332 320 306 322JULY 2,113 187 943 184 160 236 265 200 297 286 254 355 460 395 332 398AUGUST 808 153 501 185 233 248 269 357 272 301 285 367 413 326 358 493SEPTEMBER 301 232 599 192 248 270 352 455 382 254 251 333 415 402 383 451OCTOBER 101 173 584 183 195 222 206 257 253 263 282 396 419 428 368 469NOVEMBER 120 159 167 200 186 232 238 190 236 304 226 505 430 340 480 481DECEMBER 82 116 182 130 175 184 178 140 261 168 260 248 334 270 326 288

TOTAL 7,203 1,987 5,333 1,954 2,373 2,902 3,101 3,461 3,850 3,342 3,371 3,893 4,413 4,107 4,137 4,699MONTHLY AVERAGE 600 166 444 163 198 242 258 288 321 279 281 324 368 342 345 392Year To Date 7,203 1,987 5,333 1,954 2,373 2,902 3,101 3,461 3,850 3,342 3,371 3,893 4,413 4,107 4,137 4,699

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Applications Received - Year To Date

Briefing Note - Information


PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT COMPLIANCE TOOL KIT 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 person’s employer in the production of products by the person’s 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 Tool Kit from:

i. Removal of the Industrial Exception Task Force ii. PEO staff P.Engs and regulatory policy staff

iii. Organizations that have indicated a willingness to conduct a compliance audit and develop a compliance plan.

• Regulatory Communications will professionally package the Tool Kit • Communication plan directed at staff, volunteers, licence holders and business will

be developed and rolled out • Compliance Tool Kit will be presented to government in the package moving toward

proclamation of the repeal of section 12 (3) (a)

2. Appendices • Appendix A – Professional Engineers Act Compliance Tool Kit

C-476-6.8

Professional Engineers Ontario Compliance Tool Kit 1

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 3

Compliance Program 3 Audit 4 Results 5 Plan 6 Implement 7

Elements of Compliance Audit Appendix A (i) PEO Guide – Do I need a licence? Appendix A (ii) PEO Guide – Do I need a certificate of authorization? Appendix A (iii) PEO Guide – Use of the Professional Engineer’s Seal Appendix A (iv) Professional Engineers Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.28 Appendix B

General R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941 Appendix C Ontario Regulation 260/08 Appendix D Bill 68 – repeal of PEA Section 12.3(a) Appendix E Occupational Health and Safety Act R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 851 – Pre-Start Health and Safety Reviews 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.


Compliance Program – Audit The purpose of the compliance audit is to independently assess whether a person and/or an organization is acting in compliance with the essential elements of the laws and regulations governing professional engineering in Ontario. Qualified versus Accountable: Compliance with these laws and regulations goes beyond just assessing if a qualified person is doing engineering work. Not only must the engineering work be performed by someone competent, but it must also be performed by someone publicly accountable. This can be achieved by holding a licence or reporting through a licence holder who is responsible for managing the professional engineering portion of the work.

Elements of a Compliance Audit

Work Question: What work is done that is professional engineering? - Definition - Buildings

Responsibility Question: Who is taking responsibility for the professional engineering work? - Licence - Exceptions - Types of Licences - C of A

Identification Question: How is the responsible engineer identified? - Title - Public Conduct

Seal Question: How is the responsibility for the work demonstrated? - Use of Seal


Compliance Program – Results The purpose of interpreting the compliance audit results is to independently identify findings of non-compliance with the laws and regulations governing the practice of professional engineering in Ontario.

Sample Compliance Audit Report Obligation Finding Management’s Response PEA 12.(1)

Engaging in the practice of professional engineering

Relevant – non-compliant - organization is doing professional engineering work but does not always have in place a responsible engineer

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 employer’s facilities making products for the employer. 1

Relevant – compliant - organization uses non-engineers to do professional engineering on their machinery or equipment in their facility to make their product

Need to be prepared for when this licence exception is repealed by the Ontario government.

R941 53. Use of seal Relevant – compliant – organization does not seal engineering work on their final product

Need to be prepared for when the requirement to seal engineering work on final product occurs.


Compliance Program – Plan The purpose of the compliance plan is to independently take action to address the findings of non-compliance with the laws and regulations of governing professional engineering in Ontario. An individual or an organization can choose to proactively inform PEO of its compliance plan in order to avoid investigation by PEO.

Sample Compliance Plan Obligation Finding Action Timeline PEA 12.(1)

Engaging in the practice of professional engineering

Relevant – non-compliant - organization is doing professional engineering work but does not always have in place a responsible engineer

Identify employees who have a licence and assign them to supervise the professional engineering work currently done by a non-engineer

Immediately

Identify employees who may qualify for licence and request they start their application with PEO

2 months

PEA 12.(3)(a)

Licence is excepted from professional engineering on machinery or equipment for use in an employer’s facilities making products for the employer. 1

Relevant – compliant - organization uses non-engineers to do professional engineering on their machinery or equipment in their facility to make their product

Identify employees who hold the required licences and can take responsibility for this engineering work, and/or identify employees who qualify for licence and begin their application to PEO.

Before Bill 68 proclaimed by the Ontario government

R941 53. Use of seal Relevant – compliant – organization does not seal engineering work on their final product

Establish an electronic process to seal engineering work on final product

Before Use of Seal guideline is changed


Compliance Program – Implement During the implementation stage, PEO can be of assistance to facilitate an individual’s or an organization’s compliance plan with the following administrative services: on-site at an employer’s offices or in a key regional centre; web-based through information webinars; and value-added to simplify and expedite PEO’s licensing process.7

PEO’s 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.

PEO administration services

On-site - Presentations to help interpret the requirements of the Act and regulations - Seminars to explain the licensing process - Pre-screening of new licence applications - Invigilation of Professional Practice Exam (PPE)

Web-based - Presentations to help interpret the requirements of the Act and regulations - Seminars to explain the licensing process - Learning tool to prepare for the PPE

Value-added - List of employees who applied to PEO and their licence status - Bundling of new licence applications by employer to administer them together


APPENDIX A (i)


APPENDIX A (ii)


APPENDIX A (iii)


APPENDIX A (iv)


APPENDIX B


APPENDIX C


APPENDIX D


APPENDIX E


APPENDIX F



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

C-476-6.9

AElliot

Text Box

C-476-7.1