476 Council Agenda Peo PDF

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
Association of Professional
Engineers of Ontario
Briefing Note - Decision
C-476-1.1
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Purpose: To approve the agenda for the meeting.
Motion(s) to consider: (requires a simple majority of votes cast to carry)
That:
a) the agenda, as presented to the meeting at C-476-1.1, Appendix A be approved; and
b) the Chair be authorized to suspend the regular order of business.
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS Secretariat Co-ordinator
Appendices:
Appendix A 476th Council meeting agenda
476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012
C-476-1.1
Appendix A
Agenda
476th Meeting of Council of
Professi onal Engi neers Ontario
Date:
Thursday, March 1 and Friday, March 2, 2012
Time:
Thursday reception 5:30; di nner 6:00; meeting 7 :00 p.m. 9:00 p.m.
Friday 9 :00 a.m. 4:00 p.m.
Place:
PEO Offices
40 Sheppard Av enue West, 8th floor
Toronto, Ontario
Thursday, March 1
Item #
Subject
Type
PLENARY SESSION
PEO Program Review of the four PEO programs that OSPE challenged to
ensure they are consistent with and flow from PEOs mandate:
Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy
Government Liaison Program
Mentorship Program
Ontario Professional Engineers Awards
Discussion
Friday, March 2
Item #
Subject
Type
Call to Order
1.
AGENDA
1.1 Approval of Agenda
1.2 Report of the President
2.
PRIORITY ISSUES
Decision
Information
3.
4.
5.
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:
Decision
Accountability of Engineering Organizations
Continuing Professional Development
Negotiating International Recognition Agreements
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
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
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
6.
7.
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
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
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.
Pl en ary S e s si o n s - Th u r s d ay s r ec ep t ion /d i n n e r 5: 3 0 p . m. ; s e s si on 7 : 00 p .m . 9: 00 p . m. ;
Cou n ci l m ee tin g s Fri d ay s 9 :0 0 a .m . 4: 00 p . m.
Th e re i s n o p l en a ry s e s si on sc h e d u l ed o n Th u r s d ay , Ap ri l 1 3, 20 1 2 d u e to th e a ll d ay Co m mi tt e e
Ch a ir s Work s h op b ei n g h el d th e sa m e d a y .
h e ld in co n ju n cti on wi t h th e O rd e r o f H on ou r A wa rd s Gal a ( Fr id ay , Ma y 11 th ) an d An n u a l G en er al
Me et in g ( Sat u rd ay , M ay 12 th ) T oro n to Mar ri o tt E ato n Cen tr e H ot el, T oron t o
2012
January
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
February
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
March
F
3
10
17
24
S
4
11
18
25
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
1
8
15
22
29
April
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
May
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
June
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
July
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
August
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
September
F
3
10
17
24
31
S
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
October
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
November
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
December
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
PEOoffice Thursday Dinner5:30pm
PlenarySession7pmto9pm
Fridaymeeting94
May1112 Policyconference,OOH&
AGMTorontoMarriotEatonsCentre
June2123Rousseau,ON
Nov.17CLC&OPEA
PEOExecutiveCommittee
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.Ottawa
MayAGMNiagaraFalls
June Retreat (EngineersCanada
Directorsonly)Cambridge,ON
Oct.14Ottawa
ConstituentAssociationsAGMs
Feb.1618Edmundston,NB
March29Whitehorse,YK
April1921Edmonton,AB
May34Saskatoon,SK
Jun78Gander,NL
Jun1415Montreal,QC
Sept.1314Wolfville,NS
Oct.2527Victoria,BC
Oct.2527Winnipeg,MB
Nov.21Yellowknife,NWT
Nov.2930Charlottetown,PEI
February 20, 2012 Dates are subject to change
Page 1
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
2013
January
February
March
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
T
7
14
21
28
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
3
10
17
24
31
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
T
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
T
5
12
19
26
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
September
November
F
4
11
18
25
7
14
21
28
June
T
2
9
16
23
30
October
M
7
14
21
28
S
4
11
18
25
August
6
13
20
27
W
1
8
15
22
29
July
M
1
8
15
22
29
F
3
10
17
24
31
May
T
4
11
18
25
7
14
21
28
S
2
9
16
23
April
S
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
December
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
Fridaymeeting94
Apr2627 Policy conference,OOH&
AGMTBD
June2123TBD
Nov.17CLC&OPEATBD
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.Ottawa
May29Jun1AGMYellowknife,NWT
Directorsonly)TBD
Oct.14Ottawa
Feb2122Fredericton,NB
April1820Calgary,AB
May24Regina,SK
Jun67Montreal,QC
Jun1314St.John,NL
Sept.1920Halifax,NS
Oct.1719Vancouver,BC
Oct.2426Winnipeg,MB
Page 2
2014
January
S
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
February
F
3
10
17
24
31
S
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
3
10
17
24
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
T
1
8
15
22
29
W
2
9
16
23
30
T
3
10
17
24
31
F
4
11
18
25
S
5
12
19
26
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
October
M
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
W
1
8
15
22
29
2
9
16
23
30
3
10
17
24
31
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
T
2
9
16
23
30
T
1
8
15
22
29
F
2
9
16
23
30
S
3
10
17
24
31
S
1
8
15
22
29
M
2
9
16
23
30
S
4
11
18
25
F
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
T
3
10
17
24
W
4
11
18
25
T
5
12
19
26
F
6
13
20
27
S
7
14
21
28
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
F
5
12
19
26
S
6
13
20
27
September
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
F
1
8
15
22
29
S
2
9
16
23
30
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
T
4
11
18
25
November
F
3
10
17
24
31
6
13
20
27
June
August
5
12
19
26
July
M
7
14
21
28
May
6
13
20
27
S
1
8
15
22
April
S
6
13
20
27
March
December
4
11
18
25
5
12
19
26
6
13
20
27
7
14
21
28
S
1
8
15
22
29
S
7
14
21
28
M
1
8
15
22
29
T
2
9
16
23
30
W
3
10
17
24
31
T
4
11
18
25
KeyandNotes:
StatutoryHoliday
PEOCouncilMeetings
Fridaymeeting94
Apr2526 Policyconference,OOH&
AGMTBD
June1921TBD
Nov.22CLC&OPEATBD
PEOoffice35pm
StaffLuncheon
EngineersCanada
Feb.2528Ottawa
May2124AGMTBD,NB
Directorsonly)TBD
Oct.14Ottawa
Feb2021Moncton,NB
April1820Calgary,AB
May12Saskatoon,SK
Jun67Montreal,QC
Jun1213St.John,NL
Sept.1819Halifax,NS
Oct.1618Kelowna,BC
Oct.2324Winnipeg,MB
Page 3
Plenary Session Discussion

Purpose:
C-476
To review PEOs 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 PEOs authority to carry out the
four programs OSPE challenged in June 2011.
The review will take place at the plenary session of the Council meeting in March.
1. Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (OCEPP) In November 2010, Council
directed that OCEPP be operated as a PEO department and focus on regulatory matters.
2. Government Liaison Program (GLP) the program positions PEO on the same side of the
table with government to solve public interest issues related to practice of professional
engineering. Activities deal with numerous regulatory issues such as Building Code,
Electrical Safety Authority regulations, regulations regarding environmental matters,
practice standards, etc.
3. Mentorship Program - PEO runs this program through its chapters which set up and
arrange for individual mentors to guide mentees through the licensing process.
4. Ontario Professional Engineers Awards Gala the annual gala is held every November to
recognition of outstanding achievement in practice of professional engineering. OSPE
handles many of the logistical arrangements and PEO manages the awards committee
and prepares the award citations and vignettes.
The review will examine PEOs authority, from the Professional Engineers Act, to carry out the
following each of programs. In addition, the review will examine section 40 of By-law No. 1
which sets out:
Application of Funds and Administration of Property
40. The Council may approve, or may authorize or provide for the application of the
funds of the association in payment of all expenses properly incurred in the conduct
of the affairs of the association including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing:
(a) payment of all expenses incurred in connection with duties imposed on the
association under the Act, including expenses in connection with applications
(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
C-476-1.2
PRESIDENTS REPORT
Purpose: To inform Council of the recent activities of the President.
Motion(s) to consider:
none required
President Adams will provide an oral report on his recent PEO activities.
Briefing Note Decision
C-476-2.1
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 C476-2.1, 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.
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
C-476-2.1
Appendix A
GUIDELINE
Professional Engineering
Practice
Andy Bowers, P. Eng.
Colin Cantlie, P. Eng.
Vincent Chu, P. Eng.
Denis Dixon, P. Eng.
Allen Jones, P. Eng.
Roger Jones, P. Eng.
Les Mitelman, P. Eng.
Colin Moore, P. Eng.
Richard Piatti, P. Eng.
Brian Ross, P. Eng.
Daniel Tung, P. Eng.
Fanny Wong, P. Eng.
Notice: The Professional Standards Committee has a policy of reviewing guidelines every five years to
determine if the guideline is still viable and adequate. However, practice bulletins may be issued from
time to time to clarify statements made herein or to add information useful to those professional engineers
engaged in this area of practice. Users of this guideline who have questions, comments or suggestions
for future amendments and revisions are invited to submit these to PEO using the form provided in
Appendix 3.
January 2012
CONTENTS
1. PEO Mandate and Criteria for Guidelines .................. 3
2. Preface ................................................................... 4
3. Purpose and Scope of Guideline ............................... 4
4. Introduction ............................................................. 4
5. Characteristics of a Profession .................................... 5
6. The Engineering Profession in Ontario ....................... 5
7. Licence
6
8. Professional Responsibility .......................................... 8
9. The Engineers Duty to Report
9
10. Rules of Practice ....................................................... 11
10.1 Use of the Professional Engineers Seal
10.2 Relations with Client or Employer
10.3 Due Diligence
10.4 Report Writing
10.5 Giving Opinions
10.6 Communications
10.7 Retaining Documents
10.8 Confidential Information
10.9 Volunteering
10.10 Data Gathering at the Beginning of a Project
11. Conflicts of Interest ................................................... 19
12. Certificate of Authorization ....................................... 20
13. Part-time Entrepreneurship ...................................... 21
14. Advertising ................................................................ 21
15. Professional Standards ............................................. 17
16. Practice Guidelines .................................................... 18
17. Professional Misconduct
18. Code of Ethics for the Profession
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Extracts from Regulation 941/90

Ontario Legislation of Interest to Professional Engineers
Amendment and Revision Submission Form
PEO Professional Practice Guidelines
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 PEOs 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
Associations 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
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.
Guidelines provide criteria for acceptable practice by describing the expected outcome
of the activity, identifying the engineers 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).
Guidelines add value to the professional engineer licence for licensed engineers and
for the public by establishing criteria for professional standards of competence.
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 practitioners
professional judgment when providing professional engineering services. Subject to
provisions in the guideline that incorporate professional conduct requirements or legal
requirements, a decision by a practitioner not to follow the guideline will not, in and of itself,
indicate that a member has failed to maintain an acceptable standard of work. Following the
guideline may not ensure that a member has provided services conforming to an acceptable
standard established by other criteria such as contracts or particular industry standards.
Determining whether a practitioner has provided quality service will depend upon the
circumstances of each case.
See Appendix 4 for a list of PEO professional practice guidelines and standards.
2.
PREFACE
A review of the previous edition of this document by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) staff
found that it contained out-of-date references, information covered by other guidelines, and was
lacking in guidance on several generic practice matters. PEO staff, assisted by the Professional
Standards Committee, prepared this revised document. Following consultation with
stakeholders and vetting by PEO legal counsel, a final draft of this document was submitted to
the Professional Standards Committee for approval on October 18, 2011. The guideline was
approved by Council at its meeting on December 13, 2011.
3.
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.
Professional practice is defined as the carrying out of those activities defined in Section 1 of the
Professional Engineers Act in a manner that is consistent with the values of the profession. The
norms of professional practice are outlined by the Council of Professional Engineers Ontario.
This committee, through its subcommittees, works with professional engineers and external
stakeholders to describe the role of and the reasonable expectations on practitioners engaged
in specific engineering activities.
5.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A PROFESSION
A true profession is an occupation possessing specialized skills and knowledge that are
exercised for the benefit of society. Occupational groups gain professional status by
demonstrating that persons with specialized knowledge and techniques provide a service that is
unique and more likely to serve the interests of society than others with different training. The
professionals role can only become clear when members of a profession determine what
distinguishes their activities from those of other occupational groups. Once those differences
are clear the profession can strengthen its position by emphasizing its members expertise in
those particular areas of knowledge and skill.
Engineering knowledge and skills are the result of tested research and experience, and the
engineering profession has a well developed organization for the development and
dissemination of knowledge and professional ideals. In order to properly carry out the
professional services they undertake practitioners are expected to obtain, through disciplined
academic training and experience, and maintain a level of skill and knowledge consistent with
the demands of their area of practice. Every profession has well formulated standards of
admission in order to ensure that practitioners have been properly trained before entry.
Professional practitioners are expected to take responsibility and be accountable for their work.
It is interesting to note that engineering is the only profession where the primary responsibility is
to the third party, the public. Ultimately, this overriding consideration subordinates the
engineers obligations to the client or employer. Practitioners are also expected to demonstrate
behaviour that will encourage clients, employers and the public to trust the practitioners
discretion and judgment. In order to foster this behaviour professional engineers are expected to
comply with a code of ethics. Compliance with the code ensures that practitioners exercise a
high standard of care in their work and are aware of their role in protecting or promoting the
interests of the public.
6.
THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION IN ONTARIO
The engineering profession in Ontario is governed by the Professional Engineers Act R.S.0.
1990, Chapter P.28 and its subordinate regulations R. R. 0. 1990 Regulation 941 and Regulation
260/08.
The Act defines the practice of professional engineering and establishes Professional Engineers
Ontario (PEO) as the regulatory body responsible for regulating the practice of professional
engineering and governing persons and organizations carrying out work that falls within PEO
jurisdiction. The primary mandate of any professional regulatory body is to protect the public
from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners. In order to carry out this function PEO is
granted powers to license qualified individuals, discipline licence holders who are found guilty of
incompetence or professional misconduct as defined in O. Reg. 941/90, and enforce
compliance with the licensing requirements of the Act.
5
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 PEOs 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 ones licence. Furthermore, the
proceedings and verdict may be published in the associations official publication and also
become part of the engineers 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 practitioners licence classification can be
identified by the inscription on their seal. The limited licence seal also contains a description of
the restricted area of professional engineering in which that holder can practice.
According to the Act, "professional engineer" means a person who is granted a licence or a
temporary licence by Professional Engineers Ontario. Professional engineers generally have an
unrestricted right to practise professional engineering in Ontario though terms, conditions and
limitations may be imposed on a practitioners licence by the registration or discipline processes.
This means they can practise in any area of engineering as long as they are competent to do
so. Practitioners are expected to self-police their activities and accept assignments for work only
if they have the requisite knowledge and experience or can acquire the necessary knowledge in
a reasonable amount of time.
Professional engineers licensed in other jurisdictions who are not residents of Canada and
decide not to obtain a full licence but intend to provide engineering services for a project in
Ontario can obtain a temporary licence.1 The holder of a temporary licence is required to
collaborate with a professional engineer licensed in Ontario. The collaborator must ensure that
the engineering work prepared by the temporary licence holder complies with Canadian and
Ontario codes, standards, and laws governing the work. The practitioners role as a collaborator
does not include contributing to the design, carrying out site inspections or any other
engineering role. Of course, the practitioner can arrange to do these tasks but doing so would
be in addition to carrying out the compliance review of the design that the collaborator is
required to do.
Section 44(2), O. Reg. 941, states that all final drawings, reports, and other documents
prepared by the holder of the temporary licence must be co-signed and sealed by the
collaborator. As in all multi-discipline situations where multiple seals are affixed to a document
each engineer is taking professional responsibility only for the portion of the work s/he actually
performed. In the case of a collaborator that responsibility is generally only insuring that the
temporary licence holder has done work in accordance with appropriate standards, codes, laws.
The collaborator should ascertain what standards, codes or laws apply to the project, make the
designer aware of these, and check that the designer has used these in designing the work. If
the design is based on foreign codes the engineer should compare these to those applicable in
Ontario and determine whether the foreign codes are acceptable. If not, the collaborator should
inform the designer of the discrepancies and direct him/her to make changes. Of course, if the
collaborator makes the changes then he or she is now responsible for the design work or at
least for that portion of the design that is changed.
Since collaborators are required only to verify that the work conforms to the applicable codes,
standards and laws they should not review the drawings and other engineering documents for
technical accuracy. The design is the responsibility of the temporary licence holder. The two
practitioners should apply their seals with notes indicating this difference of responsibility. The
temporary licence holder and the collaborator should also have a written agreement that defines
in detail what each party is providing to the work.
The limited licence is available to individuals who, as a result of thirteen or more years of
specialized experience, have developed competence in a particular area of professional
engineering. The practice of professional engineering by the holder of a limited licence must be
limited to the services specified in the limited licence (see section 45(1), O. Reg. 941/90). This
licence is appropriate for technologists or scientists who need to take responsibility for work that
is generally considered to be within the practice of professional engineering.
Though the holder of a limited licence is allowed to work without supervision by a professional
engineer and to take professional responsibility for his or her own work, the holder of a limited
licence cannot be the holder of a Certificate of Authorization and, therefore, cannot engage in
independent practice.
A provisional licence may be issued to an applicant for a professional engineer licence who has
satisfied all of PEOs licensing requirements except for the minimum 12 months of verifiable and
acceptable engineering experience in a Canadian jurisdiction. See section 44.1(2) of O. Reg.
941 for conditions applying to a provisional licence.
1
At the time of printing there is a legislative proposal to allow such applicants to obtain other categories of licences.
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
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
engineers licence.
Good professional conduct includes practising only within ones 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 ones 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.
ENGINEERS DUTY TO REPORT
The duty to report is an essential component of an engineers commitment to professionalism.

In fact, it is so fundamental that most engineers probably dont 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 practitioners duty to protect
the public welfare as paramount (section 77(2).i, O. Reg. 941/90), the duty to report isnt
intended to make professional engineers full-time guardians of the public interest, responsible
for pointing out all of societys faults. Instead, they are expected to report only on those issues
that come to their attention during the course of their professional practice. This is why
references to the duty to report emphasize clients and employers; rarely would professional
engineers have sufficient awareness and knowledge of situations outside of their usual practice
that they could be compelled to report them. And, unless engineers have the appropriate
authority to make changes or order work, their duty is only to report, not to solve the problem.
Often, the responsibility for solving the problem rests with someone else. The engineer is
required only to make that person aware of the situation.
What should engineers do if, in the course of carrying out their work, they discover situations
that endanger safety or the public welfare? Because each situation is different, engineers
should judge how to proceed based on the particular facts of each case. In most cases,
however, here is how you should try to deal with any situation you believe may endanger the
safety or welfare of the public:
1. Assure yourself that the problem is real and that you have correctly assessed the
potential harm that might result. Find and prepare all supporting information, such as
legislation, codes, practice guides, calculations, and technical manuals, that will
reinforce your opinion.
2. Determine whom you should inform. Because a professional engineer has obligations of
fairness and loyalty to clients and employers and is also obliged to act as a faithful
trustee or agent, initial disclosure usually is given to the practitioners employer or client.
3. Advise the client or employer of the problem and suggest that remedial action should be
taken. Take all reasonable steps to ensure that the person is aware of the danger that
you believe might result from a failure to deal with the situation.
4. After a reasonable length of time, follow up with the client or employer to see if
appropriate action has been taken. The engineer should advise the client or employer
that, because of the engineers duty under the Professional Engineers Act, it will be
necessary to take this matter to appropriate authorities if the client or employer does not
take action.
5. It might also be helpful to review the situation with at least one independent engineer to
obtain an opinion on the harm that might arise from the situation, if not corrected. This
will provide the engineer with some corroboration and support. The other engineers
might also provide suggestions on what action might be taken. But be aware of your duty
to maintain confidentiality about an employers or clients business. If possible, limit your
discussions to in-house engineers. If you cant find in-house engineers, find engineers
who can be considered impartial third parties.
6. In the absence of a resolution and where the situation is serious enough to warrant your
ongoing concern, the matter should be escalated up the management chain. This should
not be done without first informing the initial contact. Reiterate that as a professional
engineer you are legally obliged to report a situation that, in your opinion, must be
corrected.
Because professional engineers have obligations both to their clients and to the public these
obligations will occasionally conflict. On one hand, engineers are obligated not to disclose
clients or employers confidential information and must avoid the use of such information to
10
clients or employers disadvantage. On the other hand, Article 72(2)(c), O. Reg. 941, provides
that failure to report a situation that an engineer believes may endanger the safety or welfare of
the public would constitute professional misconduct on the part of the engineer.
Whistle-blowing
Sometimes professional engineers find that their advice is not accepted and that the client or
employer has no intention of correcting the situation. If the engineer firmly believed that, after
exhausting all internal resources, the health and safety of any person is being, or is imminently,
endangered it may be necessary to report these concerns to some external authority such as a
designated regulatory body, a government ministry or ombudsman. Only in exceptionally rare
cases would going directly to the media or a private watchdog agency be justified. Because
professional engineers have obligations both to client and employers they must exercise
discretion in bringing the situation to the attention of persons outside the business of their
employers or clients.
As many people know this is a risky proposition since the whistle-blower is violating moral and
legal obligations owed to the employer or client. No one should take this step without seriously
considering whether it is necessary. If an engineer has reported the situation through the entire
internal management chain then most people would agree that he or she has fulfilled the duty to
report. But like civil disobedience, whistleblowing is sometimes the morally correct response to a
intolerable situation, especially if people are in danger.
Any engineer faced with this decision may also contact PEO for guidance. The association can
provide advice to a professional engineer who is dealing with an uncooperative or willfully
negligent client or employer.
Reporting incompetence or misconduct
There is no explicit requirement in the Professional Engineers Act that requires PEO
licence-holders to report to the association apparent breaches of the rules of professional
conduct by other practitioners. The Act refers only to the duty to report unsafe situations or
situations that are detrimental to the public welfare. Where an engineers incompetence or
negligence creates a situation that meets these criteria, engineers who notice need deal only
with that unsafe situation, in the manner described above. Since the duty to report refers only to
situations rather than people, they are not compelled to report the individual to PEO. However, if
an engineer is concerned that the incompetence or misconduct exhibited by another engineer is
extreme and warrants action by the association, the engineer should make a complaint, just like
any member of the public. Since the professions reputation can be adversely affected by any
incidence of incompetence or misconduct, members of the profession who are aware of such
behaviour should consider reporting it to be a prudent and practical decision.
10.
10.1
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE

Use of the Professional Engineers 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
11
Certificate of Authorization, to seal documents prepared or checked by them that are issued to
the public as part of a professional engineering service. PEO policies for acceptable use of the
seal are described in the Guideline for Use of the Professional Engineers Seal.
10.2
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 clients or employers needs. PEO
recommends that, in order to avoid misunderstandings later, agreements between clients and
practitioners pertaining to the provision of engineering services should be put into writing. The
agreement should, at a minimum:
identify the client organization and the contact to whom the practitioner will report;
specify the fees and expenses to be charged to the client;
declare any ongoing assurances or guarantees to be given by either party;
declare any limitations to liabilities or services provided by the practitioner;
describe any information that the client will provide and in what form, and provide a
schedule of when this information will be released;
contain a scope of work detailing the services the practitioner is expected to provide;
contain a list of items to be delivered by the practitioner;
provide a schedule for completion of various phases of the work, submission of
deliverables and payment of fees;
identify any remedies for breach of contract by non-payment or by early termination of
services by either party;
contain a right to terminate the agreement in appropriate circumstances.
Conflicts arising out of poor business relations or undefined terms in the professional service
agreement can expose a practitioner to a complaint of professional misconduct.
Make sure the agreement calls for the client and third parties, such as contractors, to inform the
practitioner of problems, changes to project definition, at the earliest opportunity. Similarly, the
practitioner should agree to inform the client, in writing and as soon as possible, of any situation
that will delay the project or require alterations to the scope of work.
In many situations, the professional engineer acts as an agent for the client or employer.
Though clients and employers retain their legal responsibilities, the professional engineer acting
as an agent undertakes certain tasks on behalf of his or her client and therefore is responsible
for fulfilling those responsibilities. For instance, the practitioner may be asked to handle
negotiations with a supplier on behalf of the client. By taking on this task the practitioner is
standing in for the client and often can bind the client. These responsibilities should be clearly
identified in the contract between engineer and client or employer.
12
Practitioners should not accept assignments where the terms of reference and/or the project
budget do not allow them to provide a service commensurate with their professional obligations
to the client and the public.
Practitioners should accept only those assignments that they are qualified to undertake on the
basis of their knowledge of the client's or employers needs and their ability to perform the
specific assignment.
Practitioners should ensure that employers and clients understand that some situations may
demand skills or knowledge that the practitioners do not possess, and that clients or employers
may need to retain or pay for those specialist services the practitioners judge to be necessary. If
the client is unwilling to retain or pay for necessary specialist services the practitioner must
determine whether this denial is sufficient cause for refusing the commission.
Practitioners should also ensure that their prior commitments are not put at risk because of
unexpected or unreasonable time demands caused by taking on new work. It is the
practitioners duty to set conditions beforehand and have arrangements made to meet time
exigencies.
10.3
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 clients 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
practitioners 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
13
unfamiliar with the project and, possibly, with engineering work in general. Therefore, the report
must clearly identify the project, the time period in which the service occurred, the date on which
the report was completed, the parties to whom the report is addressed, and the engineer(s) who
prepared and take(s) responsibility for the work. The report must provide contact information for
the engineering firm, should identify the client and explain the terms of reference for the project.
The practitioner should explain what work was done and how this service fulfilled the objectives
set by the client.
Any report prepared as part of a professional engineering service should be a complete
description of the work taken and the opinions or directions made on the basis of that work. All
engineering reports need to contain the following:
the purpose of the report
a clear description of the work involved to create the report
specific identification of drawings, blueprints, photographs, documents, manuals and
other reference material used
references to legislation, standards, or guidelines that have relevance to the work
where judgments or opinions are made, details of the reasoning that lead to the reports
conclusion or findings
identification of all responsible persons contributing to the report
professional engineers seal
The engineer may express an opinion in the conclusion of the report; however, it is important to
show how the opinion was formed from the data presented. If this is not possible, the engineer
should clearly state that no final opinion was reached, and the reasons why. The practitioner
must assess the information gathered during investigations and analyses to determine if it is
sufficient to form a conclusion. If it is, the conclusion may be written; it should be carefully
worded, so that it may be read in a positive sense. The use of unnecessary disclaimers can
dilute, if not negate, the effect of the report, but the wording should accurately reflect the degree
of certainty of the engineers opinion.
It is important to ensure that the client is not misled by an overly favourable report or by the
practitioners failure to give proper emphasis to adverse considerations. To ensure clarity in
reports, practitioners should refrain from using subjective appraisals and qualitative language
such as good condition or severely compromised unless these terms have specific definitions
that will be understood by most people familiar with the work or are defined in the report.
Instead, practitioners should use quantitative and verifiable language; that is, practitioners
should express their observations and conclusions in objective, preferably numerical, terms.
For some projects, the client may request the practitioner to provide preliminary reports at
various stages. These preliminary reports serve only one purpose: to inform the client about the
progress of the investigation. As the investigation is not yet complete, no conclusions of any
kind should be included in the report.
Before preparing the final2 report, the practitioner may discuss the facts and conclusions with
the client, to obtain appropriate guidance about what should be included. The professional
engineer must accept final responsibility for the report, and thus must not permit the client to
exert undue influence on its final form. Nevertheless, it is important that the professional
engineer clearly understand the precise issues the client wishes to have included in the report.
2
Final in this context means final for the purpose intended. See the Guideline for the Use of the
Professional Engineers Seal for more information on this distinction.
14
A pre-completion meeting may tend to reduce the need for repeated revisions to cover all issues
of importance to the client.
An engineering report may be read by people who do not have significant technical knowledge.
Therefore, the language and writing style should be simple and direct, and the use of
abbreviations and technical terms should be avoided where possible. Care should be taken to
observe the proper rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation. While the body of the report
must be simple, brief and couched in non-technical language, appendices intended to be read
by knowledgeable individuals can be included.
10.6
Giving Opinions
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 clients 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.
15
In any verbal communication, the important parts of the conversation should be rephrased and
repeated back to the client, employer, contractor or other party for verification that each party
understands and agrees to points made. Clearly restating, at the end of a conversation, any
points of agreement and decisions, will help avoid miscommunications and the resulting
problems.
10.8
Retaining Documents
Professional engineers produce many documents in the course of carrying out their
assignments. Practitioners producing documents for clients often find that storage of these
documents is costly and want to dispose of them when they no longer serve a purpose to the
engineering firm. Unlike certain corporate documents, there is no legal requirement under the
Professional Engineers Act or other legislation stipulating how long engineering documents,
including drawings and specifications, must be retained. Generally the documents belong to the
person or firm that created them and that person or firm is at liberty to do with them as they see
fit. Each engineering organization can decide on its own rules for retaining and disposing of the
documents it produces.
However, a practitioner should always inform clients about the document retention policies
employed by the practitioners firm and confirm that this is acceptable to the client. The
practitioner should learn whether the client has special document requirements at the initial
meeting and these requirements should be specified in the agreement. This should include
obligations on the practitioner to protect, store or destroy documents related to the project.
At the conclusion of a project, the practitioner should provide the client with sufficient copies of
all final documents either in hard-copy or electronic format. The number of copies and the
format should be stated in the client-practitioner agreement or contract.
10.9
Confidential Information
Section 77 (3) of O. Reg. 941/90 covers confidentiality, making it clear that professional
engineers should not divulge any information sensitive to their clients or employers business to
third parties unless expressly or implicitly authorized by the client or employer, or required by
law to do so. Unreserved communication between practitioner, clients or employers is essential
to effective delivery of professional services. Clients/employers must feel that all
correspondence between themselves and their engineers are completely secure. They are
entitled to assume this to be the case, without making any request as to the maintenance of
confidentiality. They are also entitled to assume that the duty of confidentiality will survive the
professional commission that required it, and continue indefinitely after the termination of
contracts or relationships.
In the preparation of material for technical publications, practitioners should be particularly
careful to avoid inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and should seek approval or
consent of the affected parties before submitting any client-specific information for publication.
Professional engineers are also expected to avoid the use of information for the benefit of
themselves or a third party, or to clients or another practitioners disadvantage. Engineers are
expected to decline employment or a commission that would require disclosure of such
information.
16
Generally speaking, employers are able to protect their proprietary rights as confidential
information, while employees are free to use the skill, expertise and knowledge that have been
acquired during employment. Employed engineers may be concerned as to the precise
obligation upon them when changing employment within their field. It is generally considered
that engineers may apply in the new position any general knowledge or expertise gained in the
old position, as long as it falls into a state of the art category. However, engineers are not
entitled to apply in the new position information gained in the old position that is of a proprietary
nature and considered to fall into the category of trade secrets.
For example, an engineer works for company X, which is in the business of mineral exploration.
The engineer is responsible for compiling and analyzing data regarding drilling leading to
determination of mineral reserves. The engineer, in the course of employment, gains skill and
experience in analyzing data for sites within this particular geological formation. The practitioner
also acquires confidential information regarding mineral reserves on land worked by X. The
engineer then leaves the employ of company X and joins a competitor company Y, which
proceeds to buy land adjoining the property based on the engineers knowledge of confidential
information. Though the engineer can apply the specialized knowledge and skills learned at X to
carry out analysis of the site, revealing the confidential information to Y is a breach of an
outstanding obligation to the previous employer.
Since practitioners, in the course of their assignments, may need to discuss aspects of the
projects with third parties they should ask clients to stipulate which disclosures need to be kept
confidential. It may well be worthwhile for professional engineers to make this distinction clear to
their clients in certain situations. This stipulation should be included in the agreement for
services or employment contract.
Occasionally, a client or employer may wish to keep secret a dangerous or potentially
dangerous situation. There should be no doubt however as to how a professional engineer must
act since all professional engineers are obligated to regard the practitioners duty to public welfare as paramount. For information on how to proceed in these cases, including a discussion of
the exceptions to the duty of confidentiality, see Section 9, Duty to Report. Practitioners who
find themselves in this circumstance should seek legal advice before contravening the duty of
confidentiality.
For example, a practitioner may be asked to sign a document that prevents the engineer from
discussing the contents of the engineers report with anyone other than the client or the clients
lawyer under any condition. The underlying threat is that any discussion regarding the report
with others would constitute a breach of contract. The practitioner completes the assignment
and in the report strongly recommends certain actions be taken by the client with respect to the
adverse environmental impact caused by the clients operations. After several months, no
actions have been taken by the client and the practitioner, concerned about the lack of
response, feels obliged to report the problem to somebody. The practitioner will need to
consider whether the paramount duty (Section 77(2)(i), O. Reg. 941/90) obligates the
practitioner to notify authorities of the clients environmental impacts in contravention of the
confidentiality agreement. It is prudent to reference such exceptions in any confidentiality
assurance provided.
PEO advises that practitioners who have knowledge of an employers proprietary information
and those who have signed non-disclosure, non-compete or similar agreements with their
employers should obtain legal advice before moving to a competing employer.
17
10.10
Volunteering
Though a practitioners professional engineering knowledge and experience is beneficial to

condominium boards, non-profit groups, social organizations and other civic institutions,
practitioners involved as volunteers in such organizations should not provide engineering
services such as design, analysis, or the offering of professional opinions. 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 practitioners 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
i)
Data Gathering at Beginning of Project
Data to be Obtained
At the beginning of any engineering project the practitioner should review, and become familiar
with, all information, such as standards, manuals, equipment and material specifications, and
contract documents, that is relevant to the project and is available to the practitioner. A search
of available technical literature, such as journals and trade magazines, for best practices and
experiences of other practitioners engaged in similar projects can be useful.
Practitioners should also become familiar with applicable federal and provincial regulations and,
for certain kinds of engineering work, municipal by-laws. All provincial statutes including the
Ontario Building Code and the regulations under the Ontario Water Resources Act, the
Environmental Protection Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act are available on the
E-laws website (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca). The Justice Laws Website
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca) is the online source of the consolidated Acts and regulations of
Canada. A list of regulations that affect many professional engineers is given in Appendix 2.
Preliminary research conducted at the beginning of a project may also involve reviewing
drawings and reports prepared by other professional engineers. According to the code of ethics
there is an obligation to notify these other practitioners only if they are still employed or retained
by the client.
ii)
Site Investigations
Many engineering projects depend on having accurate knowledge of the existing conditions
present at the site of the proposed project. Such information can only be obtained through a
personal inspection of the site by the practitioner or a delegate who is well informed
Practitioners should be sure to obtain equipment nameplate data; dimensions; detailed views of
parts of the site, structures and/or equipment; and samples, where appropriate.
In all cases, the information should be documented and preserved for future use. It is important
18
that all information be properly identified and recorded. Using the following list, the engineer
should record:
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 practitioners actions; and (2) an obligation or duty owed by the
practitioner to another person (usually client or employer) that can be adversely affected by any
action taken by the practitioner to secure that interest. The primary problem with a conflict of
interest is not the existence of competing interests but the fact that pursuing one or more of
these interests make it necessary to place duties secondary to the interests. In the case of
professional engineers, official duties include the paramount duty to protect life, health, property,
and public welfare in those situations that require the application of engineering principles.
19
Note that according to Section 72(2)(i), O. Reg. 941/90 the misconduct is a result of failing to tell
all the parties about an interest that conflicts, or may appear to conflict, with a duty; this implies
that having conflicting interests is not in itself an unethical or illegal act. After all, persons
sometimes end up facing conflicting interests in situations created by others.
For instance, an engineer who is the manager of quality assurance at Company C finds out that
the purchasing manager has contracted with a new supplier of precision plastic components;
unfortunately, the production manager at that firm is the QA managers spouse, a fact unknown
to everyone at Company C. The QA manager did not create this situation and though there is no
immediate pressure on this engineer, a potential conflict exists. As long as the QA manager
does not let circumstances sway professional judgment there is no wrongdoing. But can all
parties, even those unaware of the situation, be certain that there will be never be pressure to
accept a bad lot of plastic parts. The absence of wrongdoing by the QA manager does not
negate the obligation to report the situation to senior management at Company C.
The simplest and most effective way to deal with potential conflicts of interest is to be forthright
and talk to the appropriate parties about any circumstances that could reasonable lead those
parties to question the practitioners judgment. In most cases, there will either be no perceived
conflict (i.e., the parties are willing to accept the situation) or steps can be taken to eliminate the
possibility of one occurring.
By obtaining the agreement of all interested parties that there is no conflict of interest, engineers
reduce the possibility of litigation and charges of professional misconduct. If agreement cannot
be found, engineers have no option but to withdraw their services, thereby avoiding an
embarrassing investment in services by clients and eliminating the possibility of costly litigation.
Situations with the Potential for Conflict of Interest
The following examples illustrate some of the conflicts of interest that can confront professional
engineers who provide engineering services or products.
Case A.
Engineers can become involved in conflicts of interest most often when they are confronted with
the possibility of working for more than one client on the same project.
For example, a land owner hires a professional engineer to carry out a planning study regarding
the development of a piece of land. The engineer prepares the report, time passes, and the
developer does not request or need any further information from the engineer. The engineer is
paid for all the work done. The municipality in which the development exists is in need of an
engineering opinion that involves, among other things, this same land. It therefore contacts the
engineer who prepared the report for the developer because of the engineers expertise in the
type of work and previous experience with the municipality. The engineer is now faced with the
problem of possibly working for two different parties, each of whom is involved with the same
issue. What should the engineer do?
First, the engineer must recognize, before accepting an assignment from the second party, that
there is a potential conflict of interest. A prudent engineer will explain to the municipalitys
representative that a report was prepared for one of the land developers. The municipality may
well deem this to be a conflict and select another engineer for the assignment, thereby ending
the potential conflict. Alternatively, the municipality could decide that there is no conflict and be
willing to continue with the engineer. However, this does not resolve the engineers potential
20
conflict, because the developer, who is the first client, is not party to this decision. The engineer
should advise the municipality that the assignment will be accepted only if the developer agrees
in writing that there is no conflict. Once that written agreement is obtained, the second
assignment can be accepted. If no waiver is provided, the municipality may agree to retain the
professional engineer generally but obtain a different one for this specific land owner.
Case B.
In some circumstances, an engineer may be requested by one client to provide expert opinion
against another client for whom the engineer has regularly provided services in the past. The
dispute does not involve any services provided previously by the engineer, but is simply a case
of one loyal client retaining the engineer on a matter which involves another loyal client on the
other side. The engineer has no previous knowledge of the issue. Clearly, there is no conflict of
interest in this example, but there is an important business decision with which the engineer
must deal. Prudent engineers may decide to step away from this assignment.
Case C.
This case illustrates a conflict of interest that may occur in circumstances involving an situation
when practitioners are privy to privileged or confidential information.
Engineering firm ABC is retained to investigate the collapse of a large warehouse on behalf of
the contractor who constructed it. A senior engineer employed by ABC is assigned to this
project to work closely with the contractors lawyer and chief engineer. The owners of the
warehouse also retain an engineering expert through their lawyer. This engineer is employed by
XYZ Engineering and works closely with the owners lawyer and building manager.
During litigation investigations, ABCs senior engineer is assisted by a junior engineer who
carries out calculations, reviews drawings, and accompanies the senior engineer at the
occasional meeting with the contractors lawyer and chief engineer. Both experts prepare
reports, and litigation drags out for a considerable time. ABCs junior engineer is assigned to
several other projects in the interim, and years pass without any further participation on the
warehouse collapse.
Eventually, the junior engineer leaves ABC and is hired by XYZ to work in the bridge design
department. The contractors lawyer learns that XYZ has the junior engineer on staff. The
contractors lawyer applies to the court seeking a declaration that the firm XYZ is ineligible to
continue to act for the owners because it is now in possession of the contractors privileged and
confidential information through the junior engineer who worked on the case for the contractor.
The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that such a situation constitutes a conflict of interest
in certain instances involving law firms; it has been suggested that engineering firms could be
exposed to the same conditions. For instance, even though the junior engineer in this example
was never assigned to the warehouse case by new employer XYZ, there is a strong
presumption that confidences are shared among engineers; to the courts, this could be enough
to create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This situation is difficult to prepare for, yet can potentially be very damaging to the engineering
firms client, since years of effort could be devalued. This would leave the client very vulnerable
as the trial date approached. To avoid problems XYZ should either obtain the agreement of
ABC and its relevant clients or set up at the time of hiring a formal administrative separation of
the junior engineer form all information and discussions on the matter. Legal advice should be
sought.
21
Case D.
Engineers are often active outside their particular engineering activities, serving with numerous
charitable groups, boards of directors, political parties, etc. From time to time, while participating
in one of these non-engineering groups, circumstances will put engineers in positions where
they may be required to participate in the selection or appointment of an engineer to provide
engineering services to the non-engineering group. This could put engineers working with the
non-engineering group in a conflict of interest if their own engineering firm is in competition for
this assignment. Engineers should recognize this conflict and refuse to participate in the
selection process, after explaining the circumstances to the group they are serving.
Case E.
It is not uncommon for small municipalities that cannot afford to have a permanent municipal
engineer on staff to retain a consulting engineer to fill that role. That engineer, for all intents and
purposes, fulfills the duties of the municipal engineer. In this example, an engineer providing
these services to the municipality has another client who is in the land development business.
The developer requests the engineer to provide services on a project which the developer
intends to carry out on land owned within the municipality for which the engineer provides the
ongoing municipal engineering duties.
In this particular situation, municipal approvals are required. The engineer recognizes that there
is a potential conflict of interest if assistance were provided to the developer, because of the
confidential information the engineer has with respect to the ongoing work done previously for
the municipality. Also, in approving work carried out by the developer on behalf of the
municipality, the engineer would be trying to serve two clients on the same work and therefore
would be in further conflict. The engineer decides correctly to turn down the work for the
developer, so that the ongoing work for the municipality can be performed without such conflict.
Case F.
Engineer M works in a company XYZ, which develops and sells products and services to a wide
variety of customers. A friend N runs a small company ABC Services, which sells a specialized
product very different from those produced by XYZ. Engineer M has ideas for improving the
product sold by ABC Services and offers to assist N. Engineer M, develops the design on her
own time using resources made available at ABC Services by N.
Because the product is not a competitor for those sold by XYZ and M is not using XYZ
resources, Ms work on the product does not directly conflict with her obligations to her
employer. However, according to Sections 72(1)(i).4 and 77.5, O. Reg. 941/90, engineer M is
required to notify her employer about these moonlighting activities. This is necessary so that
the employer can be advised of circumstances that might appear to be a conflict if discovered in
the future. The best course of action is to make all parties aware of the situation at once and
allow the parties the opportunity to be assured that a conflict does not exist.
12.
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
The Professional Engineers Act requires that every individual offering professional engineering
services to the public hold a licence, and every business entity (sole proprietorship, partnership,
or corporation) offering services to the public hold a Certificate of Authorization granted by the
association. The term providing services to the public is used in O. Reg. 941/90 to denote
arrangements other than employment where the practitioner is undertaking engineering work for
the benefit of one or more persons. This can be as a sole proprietor, as an employee of an
22
engineering firm, or as an employee for a firm manufacturing custom designed equipment. The
public in this context is any person or corporate entity external to the provider of the
engineering services
The term "providing professional engineering services to the public" is used in conjunction with
two specific regulatory issues mentioned in the Professional Engineers Act: the sealing of
engineering documents and the need for a Certificate of Authorization. A person is providing
professional engineering services when he or she undertakes any of the activities considered to
be within the practice of professional engineering for the benefit of an employer or 'the public'.
For the purposes of all regulatory directives regarding engineering practice 'the public' is
considered to be anyone other than him/herself or the professional engineer's employer.
Therefore, a practitioner is providing professional engineering services to the public when the
work is done for the benefit of an individual, corporation, government or other entity that is not
the engineer's employer. Work done by a professional engineer solely for the employer's use
within the employer's domain is not considered to be work done for the public even if the
employer is a public institution such as provincial or municipal governments, school boards, or
crown corporations. However, if the work involves the practice of professional engineering it
must be done by or supervised by a professional engineer even if it is solely for the employer's
benefit. The only exception to this is the so-called "industrial exemption" described in Section
12(3) of the Act.3
This legal requirement is not eliminated in cases where the practitioner or business is providing
engineering services for free or as a volunteer (see Section 10.9).
Note that under the associations regulations, all certificate of authorization holders must either
carry professional liability insurance (unless exempted by Article 47.3.iii of O. Reg. 941), a
suitable equivalent insurance (Articles 47.3.i and 47.3.ii) or disclose to each and every client
that they are not insured. Nonconformance to this regulation is considered to be professional
misconduct.
13.
PART-TIME ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The term moonlighting is understood to describe any instance where individuals, who are
engaged full-time by an employer as their principal means of livelihood, offer or undertake
professional engineering services for a different and separate employer or client, conducting
such work in hours outside those of regular employment.
This practice has obvious possibilities of conflict of interest, if there is failure to fulfill the
obligations owed, either explicitly or implicitly, to the employer by contract of employment. The
Code of Ethics refers to this practice in article 77.5, O. Reg. 941/90, which outlines the
limitations that may be placed on such services.
It must be borne in mind that every entity, whether it is an individual, partnership or a
corporation, that offers or provides professional engineering services to the public, (i.e. to a
person or business other than the engineers employer) requires a Certificate of Authorization.
This applies to practitioners operating a part-time engineering business.
14.
ADVERTISING
Again, there is a legislative proposal at the time of printing to remove the industrial exemption.
23
Practitioners holding a Certificate of Authorization are allowed to advertise in order to offer their
engineering services as long as the advertising is done in a professional and dignified manner.
The advertising must describe the practitioners services and experience in a factual manner
without exaggeration.
Section 75 of O. Reg. 941/90 governs the use of advertising by a practitioner or firm. The
regulation expressly forbids the use of a members engineering seal or the seal of the
association in any form of advertising engineering services. This includes the use of these seals
on business cards and letterheads. A violation of Section 75 may expose the practitioner to a
complaint of professional misconduct.
Practitioners should avoid advertising that:
claims a greater degree or extent of responsibility for a specified project or projects than is
the fact;
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 practitioners work;
denigrates or belittles another professionals projects, firms or individuals;
exaggerates claims as to the performance of the project;
illustrates portions of the project for which the advertiser has no responsibility, without
appropriate disclaimer, thus implying greater responsibility than is factual; or
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
engineers 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
24
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 employers or clients 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 projects size and complexity. The guidelines should
not be considered as a means of reducing or otherwise limiting an engineers 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
25
need information regarding criteria for design they should refer to the best practice standards
established by the research and experience of other practitioners in their area of work. These
discipline-specific standards are prepared by technical associations or learned institutions such
as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc. (IEEE) or the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
26
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 practitioners employer the
consequences to be expected from a deviation proposed in work, if the
professional engineering judgment of the practitioner is overruled by nontechnical 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
27
the code of ethics,

(h) undertaking work the practitioner is not competent to perform by virtue of the
practitioners 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 practitioners own right to perform professional
engineering services for other than the practitioners 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
practitioners 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.
28
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 practitioners employer, to the
practitioners clients, to other members of the practitioners profession, and to
the practitioner to act at all times with,
i. fairness and loyalty to the practitioners 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 practitioners duty to public welfare as paramount,
ii. endeavour at all times to enhance the public regard for the practitioners
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 practitioners licence, temporary licence,
provisional licence, limited licence or certificate of authorization, as the
case may be, permanently displayed in the practitioners 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
29
the practitioners actions or judgment.

4. A practitioner must disclose immediately to the practitioners 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
practitioners own name to perform professional engineering work for other
than the practitioners employer, must provide the practitioners client with a
written statement of the nature of the practitioners status as an employee and
the attendant limitations on the practitioners services to the client, must
satisfy the practitioner that the work will not conflict with the practitioners
duty to the practitioners employer, and must inform the practitioners
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 practitioners 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 practitioners
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.
30
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.

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.

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
31
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
Standards for design and construction of

fuel distribution and handling facilities;
requirements for licensing of facilities;
duties of owners of facilities
Gaseous Fuels O. Reg. 212/01

Fuel Oil O. Reg. 213/01
Compressed Gas O. Reg. 214/01
Liquid Fuels O. Reg. 217/01
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
32
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.
33
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: Jos Vera, P.Eng., Standards and Guidelines
Fax: (416) 224-1579
Email: jvera@peo.on.ca
34
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 Engineers Seal (2008)
31. Using Software-Based Engineering Tools (2011)
Performance Standards
1. General Review of Construction of a Building (2008)
2. General Review of Demolition and Demolition Plans (2008)
35
C-476-2.1
Appendix B
Consultation Comments
Document:
Revision:
Review Period:
Commentator
Paul Acchione, P.Eng.
Professional Practice
3
March 25, 2011 June 7, 2011
Comments
Page 4, section 4, 3rd paragraph
Include a sentence A person is also practicing
professional engineering if they are undertaking an act
or activity that any legislation or regulation requires a
professional engineer to undertake exclusively.
Reason: Demand side legislation imposes more severe
restrictions on who can practice engineering in some
cases even if there is no obvious public safety issue in
specific applications. An example is the TSSA 2000 and
its regulations.
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
PEO Response
We cannot say that the person is practicing professional
engineering if doing work required by demand side
legislation. The demand side legislation does not change
the definition of the practice of professional
engineering. Certain work that must be done by a
professional engineer according to demand side
legislation (or that includes engineers within a group of
persons who can do the work) is definitely not a
professional engineering activity. For instance, reserve
fund studies are primarily financial assessments.
Revised
Not correct
PEO will take this suggestion under advisement and

conduct a policy inquiry to consider recommendations
1
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 engineers 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 publics behalf as a matter of public
safety covered by the P. Eng. Act?
to Council.
Page 16, section 10.9, 3rd last paragraph.

Thank you. This guideline has been revised as noted.
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
Thank you. This suggestion has been noted. However,

the legal issues involved are too complex for PEO to
offer advice on all these issues.
engineers 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.
Revised
Revised
General Comments:
An excellent draft and a significant improvement over
the existing version. Our compliments to the PSC
committee.
The appendix 2 is particularly helpful and the reference
to the e-laws web site is also useful. There is both a
federal and provincial e-laws site that may be worth
mentioning for engineers that are involved in works that
have federal jurisdiction even though there is no P. Eng.
Act federally.
Reference to the federal e-laws site has been included.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca
With that said, the engineering business is changing.

3
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?
This might be more appropriately considered as an

addition to the Guideline for Use of the Professional
Engineers Seal.
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 nonengineer supervisors or managers review and approve
the engineering work of engineers?
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.
When regulatory requirements require independent

review and/or approval of specific work documents, do
the independent reviewers and approvers require a
This question will be addressed by PEOs policy

department.
4
Konrad Brenner, P.Eng.
professional engineering licence? For example the

nuclear CSA N286 standards require via the facility
holders license to independently review and approve
all nuclear safety related work a current topic of
interest as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
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".
Martin Buchanan, P.Eng.
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.
Section 6, The Engineering Profession in Ontario doesnt

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.
Thank you. These concerns have been noted.
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
5
Stephen Burns, P.Eng.
Rich Deakin, P.Eng.
section 3, Purpose and Scope of the Guideline.

Statement of proposed amendment or revision:
1. Page 13 2nd last bullet recommends identifying all Revised
persons. I suggest that this could be limited to all
responsible persons.
2. Page 23 last bullet of Section 14 says the opposite Revised
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.
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
6
practitioners work;
denigrates or belittles another professionals projects,
firms or individuals;
exaggerates claims as to the performance of the
project;
illustrates portions of the project for which the
advertiser has no responsibility, without appropriate
disclaimer, thus implying greater responsibility than is
factual, or
does not directly or indirectly criticize a practitioner or
the employer of a practitioner.
I believe the last bullet should read as follows:
Brian W. Hester, P. Eng.
Ken Hodges, P.Eng, F.CSCE
directly or indirectly criticizes a practitioner or the

employer of a practitioner.
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.
I only have a couple of comments.
Revised
Thank you. The document will be thoroughly edited by

PEOs Communications department before publication.
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.
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.
Section 7 might address the use of the label engineer

to the public. For instance can the holder of a limited
Agreed. The document is revised to include a section on

the use of titles.
7
Paul E. Mak, EIT, AScT
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.
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.
David Moses, P.Eng.
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.
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.
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
8
Dave Parsons, P. Eng.

(retired)
Section 5 para 3 2nd last sentence: add 's' to

professional
Revised
Section 6 para 3, sentence 2: add 's' to law
Revised
Section 7 para 2, bullet 1: 'engineer' not engineering
Revised
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.
Revised
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.
Agreed, the guideline has been revised to include a

section on the use of titles.
Section 14 sentence 1: 'advertise' not advertising.

Comments:
Revised
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??
Revised engineers was missing from sentence.
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
This is a requirement stipulated in section 46.2 of O.Reg.

941.
9
to develop competence in a specialized area of

professional engineering.
Roger Toutant, P.Eng.
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.
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
Revised to indicate that the QA Manager is a

professional engineer.
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
practitioners 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.
10
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
11
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?
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.
b) "A tool and die designer does not need a licence"

Why not?
This is an exception to licensure provided by section

12.3.
Page 7:
a) What is the definition of a "collaborator"?
Agreed. A definition will be provided.
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?
The requirement is stipulated in section 46 of O.Reg.

941. The decision was made by PEOs legislation
Committee in 1984 and approved by Council at that
time.
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.
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.
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
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
12
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.
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.
Page 16:
a) I can't believe you actually printed the following
statement: "Though a practitioners professional
engineering knowledge and experience is beneficial to
condominium boards, non-profit groups, social
organizations and other civic institutions, practitioners
involved as volunteers in such organizations should not
provide engineering services such as design, analysis, or
the offering of professional opinions." Doesn't this hurt
the very people who could least afford engineering
services? Such a statement is truly awful and you
should be ashamed for making this suggestion. Is the
aim to prevent competition (a feature of cartels and
monopolies) or what?
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.
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.
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.
I highly recommend that you remove the statement

about not providing volunteer services to non-profit
groups, etc. It is utterly despicable!
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
13
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.
14
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
holders 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
15
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
This opinion will be assessed by PEOs policy
Demand-side legislation imposes more severe
department.
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.
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.
16
Section 6 - The Engineering Profession in Ontario

PEO will continue to evaluate the need for mandatory
This section is a description of the statutory authority
professional development and practice inspections.
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.
As previously noted, PEO will continue to evaluate the

need for mandatory professional development and
practice inspections.
17
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 engineers 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 publics 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 PEOs policy department for

assessment.
18
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
engineers work or documents.
OSPE trusts the above will assist PEO in finalizing this
important guideline.
19
C-476-2.2
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
In a letter from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) dated December 20th, 2011,
the Government Liaison Committee (GLC) was informed that OSPEs 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.

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.

The letter be sent to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.
4. Appendices
Appendix A OPSEs letter to Chair, Government Liaison Committee

Appendix B draft of letter to OSPE
476th Meeting of Council Marc h1-2, 2012
C-476-2.2
Appendix A
C-476-2.2
Appendix B
xxxx, 2012
Alourdes Sully, P.Eng.
President and Chair
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
4950 Yonge St, Suite 502
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6K1
Dear Ms. Sully,
In response to your letter dated December 20th, 2011 regarding Ontario Society of Professional
Engineers (OSPE) participation on the Government Liaison Committee, I would like to inform you that
the Government Liaison Committee interest is to have OSPE participate as a full member, recognizing
the positive contribution of the current member, Bill Goodings, P.Eng., to date.
Yours sincerely,
David Adams, P.Eng., FEC

President
C-476-2.3
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE - EMERGING ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES

Purpose: To establish a permanent committee for Emerging Engineering Disciplines
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)
The Engineering profession is unique in that its set of practices expands with the growth of
technology and science. In 1922, we began with five disciplines (Civil, Mechanical,
Chemical, Electrical and Mining). Today there are over 30 disciplines and many more subvariations. If anything, the rate of growth of new areas of practice is increasing at a
geometric rate. There is also a tendency for some scientists to apply some new discovery to
things that are useful for human consumption. Though this is done innocently of the law,
when such steps are taken and a new public risk is introduced, the work has become
Engineering by definition. Of course, really new science - like that in genomic manipulation introduces unknown risks and really necessitates the discipline and judgment of an Engineer
in applying the precautionary principle.
It is PEOs responsibility to govern the practice of engineering (in order that the public
interest is served and protected). What we have now come to understand over the last 20
years, beginning with the Software Engineering crisis, is that the profession is expanding as
described above. Technology diffusion rates have gone from decades in the 1900s to years
in the 2000s. We currently have more scientists and engineers alive today than ever in the
history of human kind. So our rate of new discoveries and inventions in our current
generation far exceeds our previous human history on this planet!
The creation of this committee is one step in mitigating the run-away growth we are now
recognizing. The committee will be tasked to identify new disciplines as they come into
existence and bring these to the attention of PEO Council for action. Without this
committee, PEO will not have the market and industry visibility it requires to fulfill its full
mandate to govern all areas of engineering practice.
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.

On acceptance by PEO Council, the initial actions will be the identification of engineers with
a generalist perspective that can assist in monitoring various industries, universities,
patents and generally developments that cross into the practice of Engineering.
Initially, all members who have participated in an emerging discipline task force should be
consulted for their interest in helping to launch this new committee.
PEOs leading edge work over the last 20 years, with its several task forces on this issue,
places PEO in a leadership position to move forward on this committee. Initial funding will
be the same as all committees in order to hold meetings. When the committee begins to
operate, it is expected that they will come back to Council on an as-needed basis for any
additional funds. For example, the acquiring of patent documents, or the hiring of a support
staff member to provide special research etc.
Process
Followed
Council
Identified
Review
Actual
Motion
Review

Proposal initiated by Emerging Disciplines Task Force; reviewed CEQBs
Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice 2011 Report
Awaiting Council direction
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
Page 2 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
Page 3 of 6
C-476-2.3
Appendix A
Appendix A Memo from Chantal Guay, P.Eng., CEO, Engineers Canada
From: "Chantal Guay" <Chantal.Guay@engineerscanada.ca>
To: "Peter M DeVita - rogers" <peterdev@rogers.com>; <daveadams@wightman.ca>
Cc: "Kim Allen" <KAllen@peo.on.ca>; <czinck@zcg.com>; "Ken McMartin"
<Ken.McMartin@engineerscanada.ca>; "Stephanie Price"
<Stephanie.Price@engineerscanada.ca>; "Alana Lavoie"
<alana.lavoie@engineerscanada.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:38 AM
Subject: Emerging areas of engineering
Dear David and Peter,
Following e-mails exchanged in mid-January on the potential creation of an emerging areas of
engineering committee at PEO, I would like to provide the following information about what is
in place at Engineers Canada to address emerging areas. We believe that there would be great
value in having good exchange of information and communication between the Qualifications
Board and a potential PEO committee so that duplication of effort is avoided and we can help
each other in the same manner we have done it for nanotechnology and Communications
Infrastructure Engineering.
I would be very happy to discuss further or answer any questions you might have and look
forward to hearing the potential decision of PEO council on the creation of such a committee.
Best regards
Chantal
Engineers Canada has tasked the Qualifications Board with the responsibility to " Identify,
evaluate and advise on the impact of emerging disciplines potentially relevant to the profession
and develop information on admission and experience standards."
Engineers Canada defines the practice of professional engineering as any act of planning,
designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing any
of the foregoing, that requires the application of engineering principles, and that concerns the
safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the
environment. Based on this definition, a new engineering area emerges when a unique core
body of knowledge coalesces, and when this knowledge evolves to the development and design
of devices, processes, systems, and services which affect the welfare and safety of the public.
Therefore, when a new engineering area emerges, the Qualifications Board shall recognize the
field, define it and recommend to the constituent associations that they engage in the
regulation of that area of practice. In fact, Engineers Canada depends upon our constituent
associations and volunteers from across Canada at every step of this process - from identifying
potential areas for inclusion in the report to developing new syllabi. For example, PEO's recent
Page 4 of 6
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
Page 5 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.
Page 6 of 6
C-476-2.3
Appendix B
Terms of Reference
Emerging Engineering Disciplines Committee (EEDC)

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

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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Constituency &
Qualifications of
Committee/Task
Force Members
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.
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.
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;
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.
Establish and maintain documentation on processes and best practices
for assessing emerging and emerged disciplines and for establishing
appropriate regulatory environments for them.
Maintain dialogue with Engineers Canada and its Constituent
Associations and boards (CEAB and CEQB) on issues related to
emerging engineering disciplines.
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 PEOs 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 PEOs 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 chairs absence, and to provide
orientation and training for new members.
To chair meetings of their respective working/task groups.
Term Limits for

Committee
members
Quorum
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.
Following the spirit of Wainbergs 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.
C-476-2.3
Appendix C
Engineers Canada
Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
Report
August 12, 2011
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..
I.
Introduction...
II.
Financial Engineering.
III.
Energy Engineering and Sustainability Engineering.
IV.
Management Engineering.
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
Page 2 of 17
August 12, 2011
Executive Summary
The Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice report identifies potential new areas of practice for review and
assessment by the Engineers Canada Qualifications Board. The 2011 review examines a total of nine potential
emerging areas, namely financial engineering, energy engineering and sustainability engineering, management
engineering, information systems security engineering, clinical engineering, architectural engineering, climate
engineering/geo-engineering, and pharmaceutical engineering.
Financial engineering is defined as a multidisciplinary field relating to the creation of new financial instruments
and strategies, and involving financial theory, the methods of engineering, the tools of mathematics, and the
practice of programming. Financial engineering aims to precisely control the financial risk that an entity takes
on. Most of the financial engineering courses or programs offered at Canadian universities are located outside
of engineering within the universities management or business faculties, and are often associated with
masters level education, such as a Master of Financial Engineering. Despite its name, existing programs in
financial engineering do not appear to be considered a field of engineering, and only a limited number of
engineering-based courses in financial engineering currently exist in Canada.
The fields of energy engineering and sustainability engineering have become very closely connected. Energy
engineering deals with all aspects of energy, from its generation to its end use. Sustainability engineering is
concerned with the responsible use of the worlds finite natural resources in a manner which will not
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Canadian universities are expanding
their educational offerings in the area of energy engineering, and sustainability engineering is being widely
incorporated into existing engineering disciplines or combined with other fields to form multi-disciplinary
programs. As use of these titles continues to grow, they will likely make further gains in popularity and
acceptance as recognized fields of engineering practice.
Management engineering refers to ways of taking the disciplines, practices, and processes of engineering and
transferring them to business management in order to optimize complex processes or systems. Management
engineering as its own field is still relatively new, but appears to apply many of the same tools and techniques
that are used in the traditional discipline of industrial engineering, with greater depth of training in modern
information systems, operations research, and general management.
Information systems security engineering involves designing systems to secure and protect information. It is
defined as applied systems engineering with an emphasis on information security. Information systems
security engineering currently exists as an independent field of study at only one Canadian university, but most
computer-related science and engineering programs include courses or even specializations in information
systems security. Since information systems security concerns impact most areas of society, it is likely that this
field will continue to grow as it aims to increase public safety through the effective protection of stored
information.
Clinical engineering is typically considered a branch within biomedical engineering that is primarily responsible
for applying and implementing medical technology to optimize health care delivery. Clinical engineering is a
bridge that links medicine and engineering, a role that is becoming increasingly more important as clinical
medicine becomes more and more dependent on technology and sophisticated equipment. Clinical
engineering appears to be gaining recognition as the field responsible for assessing, managing, and solving
problems within an industry that sees significant intersection and interaction between healthcare and
engineering.
Architectural engineering is the application of engineering principles and technology to building design and
construction. While the term architectural engineering is common in the United States, it is often referred to
Page 3 of 17
August 12, 2011
as building engineering in Canada. Architectural/building engineering shares common elements with several
other engineering disciplines, but architectural engineering concentrates on building projects, which includes
building system design and their impact on the surrounding environment, as well as addressing unique
challenges such as earthquake and hurricane preparedness.
Climate engineering or geo-engineering can be defined as the deliberate, large-scale modification or
engineering of the environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in human-induced
climate change or atmospheric chemistry. The field of climate engineering/geo-engineering has, as of yet, not
demonstrated a significant presence in engineering education, and definitions of these terms are not
universally accepted. It remains a relatively new field with largely unproven strategies that are receiving some
attention in research circles due to growing concerns over climate change issues.
Pharmaceutical engineering is typically associated with the conception, design, scale-up, manufacturing,
labelling, and packaging processes involved in the conversion of chemical and biological materials to
pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical therapies, but it can also take part in the conception, design,
construction, and operation of the research facilities and manufacturing plants where these end-products are
developed and produced. While still relatively new, the field of pharmaceutical engineering aims to provide
engineers with the requisite skills to work in the rapidly evolving regulatory framework that determines
pharmaceutical product design and manufacturing processes. Academic programs dedicated to this field of
study are few at the moment, but the existence of such organizations as the International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering, provides some evidence that this discipline may continue to grow.
These nine fields of study are examined in further detail in the 2011 Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
report, along with a brief summary of the survey process used to identify and select areas for inclusion in this
years review.
Page 4 of 17
August 12, 2011
I. Introduction
In 1999, Engineers Canada adopted the Emerging Technologies Policy. 1 This policy was developed to ensure
that emerging areas of engineering practice are identified and addressed proactively by the profession. To
assist in the implementation of this policy, the Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice report is now produced
biennially to identify potential new areas of practice for review and assessment by the Engineers Canada
Qualifications Board.
In the 2009 report, 13 potential emerging areas were examined: avionics engineering, biomedical engineering,
biomolecular engineering, ecological engineering, electronic game engineering/simulation-based engineering
science, enviromatics, information systems security engineering, integrated computational materials
engineering, management engineering, nanotechnology engineering, energy engineering, sustainability
engineering, and health engineering. A few of these areas are re-examined as part of this years report, along
with some potential new areas of practice that have not been the focus of previous reports. To identify these
potential new areas, a review was undertaken with an emphasis on the educational activities occurring at
Canadian universities. An email survey of the members of the National Council of Deans of Engineering and
Applied Science was also conducted to supplement this review. This years review examines a total of nine
potential emerging areas, namely financial engineering, energy engineering and sustainability engineering,
management engineering, information systems security engineering, clinical engineering, architectural
engineering, climate engineering/geo-engineering, and pharmaceutical engineering.
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 masters level education, such as a Master of Financial
Engineering.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Policy_EmergTech.pdf.
http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca/
3
www.ieor.columbia.edu
1
2
Page 5 of 17
August 12, 2011
Situation
At York University, the financial engineering program is a collaborative program established in cooperation
with the Faculty of Arts Department of Mathematics, the Faculty of Science and Engineering Department of
Mathematics & Statistics, and the Schulich School of Business. A graduate diploma in financial engineering is
offered to Masters students in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Master of Business Administration students
in the Schulich School of Business. For other Masters students at York University, the financial engineering
program must be completed as a diploma. Students who fulfill the degree requirements of their graduate
program as well as the requirements for the financial engineering diploma are eligible for a graduate diploma
in financial engineering. The program aims to produce Financial Engineering graduates that have the
theoretical knowledge and specialized skills required to develop new financial instruments and to understand
the role of financial instruments within the broader economic and business contexts. 4
At the University of Toronto, financial engineering is the focus of the Master of Mathematical Finance program,
which involves a multi-disciplinary approach that employs academics in mathematics, computer science,
statistics, and engineering to teach courses in computing, financial concepts, probability, mathematical finance,
risk management, and communication skills. 5 Also available through the University of Toronto, the Rotman
School of Management offers a Master of Business Administration with a major in Risk Management and
Financial Engineering.
A few examples can be found of Canadian universities offering courses in financial engineering within their
engineering faculties. For instance, in its 2011-2012 undergraduate calendar, Ryerson University lists a course
in financial engineering as part of the industrial engineering program. The course is described as exploring
concepts and methods of financial engineering and its applications with special emphasis on fixed income
mathematics, introduction to derivatives, valuation of forward contracts and future contracts, hedging
strategies using futures, properties of stock options, no-arbitrage pricing, continuous models (the Black-Scholes
theory), and discrete models (lattice approach, Monte Carlo simulation, and finite difference method). 6
Likewise, the University of Toronto offers a course in financial engineering through an Engineering
Mathematics, Statistics, and Finance major in their Engineering Science program. This major is intended to
provide students with a strong background in mathematics and statistics, and an understanding of how these
disciplines apply to practise in quantitative finance through the use of engineering tools, such as optimization. 7
The course in financial engineering is said to provide a background in the fundamental areas in financial
engineering including relevant concepts from financial economics. Major topics include interest rate theory,
fixed income securities, bond portfolio construction, term structure of interest rates, mean-variance
optimization theory, the capital asset pricing model, arbitrage pricing theory, forwards and futures, and
introduction to option pricing and structured finance. 8
Conclusion
Despite its name, existing programs in financial engineering do not appear to be considered a field of
engineering, and only a limited number of engineering-based courses in financial engineering currently exist in
Canada. At the 2010 Investment Innovation Conference held in Phoenix, Arizona, keynote speaker Edward
Kane, professor of finance at Boston College, stated that there is no true engineering involved in the financial
www.yorku.ca/fineng/home/home.html
http://www.mmf.utoronto.ca
6
http://www.ryerson.ca/calendar/2011-2012/pg2769.html
4
5
http://www.discover.engineering.utoronto.ca/programs/academic-programs/engineering-science.htm
http://engsci.utoronto.ca/explore_our_program/majors/math_stats_and_finance/finance_courses.htm
Page 6 of 17
August 12, 2011
world. 9 In the United States, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (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 worlds 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 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 A: Smart Technologies for Power Generation and Distribution
Stream B: Efficient Energy Generation and Conversion
http://www.benefitscanada.com/investments/global-investments/financial-engineering-can-cause-more-harm-thanuntested-medicines-344
10
International Institute for Sustainable Development. 2008. Introduction to sustainable development: Definitions.
http://sdgateway,net/introsd/definitions.htm
11
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1988). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
http://interestingenergyfacts.blogspot.com/2009/01/sustainable-energy-and-sustainable.html
13
Carnegie Mellon Center for Sustainable Engineering. http://www.csengin.org/
14
http://www1.carleton.ca/admissions/programs/sustainable-and-renewable-energy/
9
Page 7 of 17
August 12, 2011
Carleton University is also offering a new undergraduate program in Architectural Conservation and
Sustainability Engineering, with first graduates expected in 2015. 15 This program is discussed in detail under
the Architectural Engineering section of this report.
Likewise, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology is offering a new program in Energy Systems
Engineering, with first graduates also expected in 2015. The programs objectives are to teach students the
skills they will need to design and develop tomorrows energy systems. The program was developed to meet
the rapidly increasing demand for graduates with the knowledge and skills required to help Canada and the
rest of the world meet the terms of the Kyoto agreement, while ensuring that the growing consumption of
energy can be satisfied economically and with minimum impact on the environment. The curriculum provides
students with an understanding of the principles and applications of the full range of energy systems and
technologies from traditional fossil-fuelled energy systems to alternative energy technologies, and also
provides education on the production, storage, distribution and utilization of energy. 16
As of September 2010, Queens University offers a collaborative Masters Program in Applied Sustainability,
involving six programs within the engineering faculty: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Mechanical and Materials Engineering
and Mining Engineering. The objective of this collaborative program is to expose students to the
implementation of sustainable engineering solutions within the context of broader sustainability theory. 17
The University of Toronto offers all undergraduate engineering students (except students enrolled in the
Engineering Science Energy Systems Option) the opportunity to pursue the sustainable energy minor. The
minor is intended for students interested in learning more about energy, its sustainable use, energy demand
management and the public policy context in which energy use and production is regulated. 18
The Center for Sustainable Engineering located in Syracuse, New York, is a partnership among five universities:
Syracuse University (lead institution), Arizona State University, Carnegie-Mellon University, Georgia Institute of
Technology and the University of Texas at Austin. Supported by the National Science Foundation and the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Centre is dedicated to helping engineering professors update their
courses and develop new ones to account for rapidly changing world conditions that are transforming the
practice of engineering. This is achieved through workshops conducted by the Center, which provide guidance
so that the impacts of engineering decisions on the environment, society, and the economy can be included in
courses across the engineering curriculum. 19
Conclusion
Interest in energy engineering has increased in recent years because of a growing need for sustainable energy
systems. Several Canadian universities are expanding their educational offerings in the area of energy
engineering, either as a stand-alone program, or as an integral component of existing programs. Sustainability
engineering appears to be less of a stand-alone discipline and more of a philosophical approach that is being
widely incorporated into existing engineering disciplines or combined with other fields to form multidisciplinary programs. However, as use of these titles continues to grow, they will likely make further gains in
popularity and acceptance as recognized fields of engineering practice.
www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccmsfiles/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf
16
https://connect.uoit.ca/uoit/program.do?from=subject&programID=48
17
www.queensu.ca/sgs/program/engineering-sciences/applied-sustainability.html
18
http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/Programs/Minors_Certificates/Engineering_Minors_Certificates.htm
19
http://www.csengin.org/csengine
15
Page 8 of 17
August 12, 2011
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
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx
http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/admissions/Admissions/documents/Engineering_pdf_2010FINAL.pdf
22
http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/students/academic-programs/interdisciplinary-programs
23
http://www.engineering.ubc.ca/current_students/graduate/EMS/index.php
20
21
Page 9 of 17
August 12, 2011
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, societys
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 masters 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/
http://www.engr.mun.ca/graduate/course/mem.php
26
http://www.csem-scgi.org/about.html
27
http://www.balancedscorecard.org/ManagementEngineering/tabid/134/Default.aspx
28
http://www.sse-cmm.org/docs/ssecmmv3final.pdf
29
M. Douglas Higginbotham et al., Integrating information security engineering with system engineering with system
engineering tools (Seventh IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative
Enterprises, 1998), Abstract.
30
http://www.ciise.concordia.ca/
25
Page 10 of 17
August 12, 2011
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
http://gsya.esi.uclm.es/Wisse2011/CFP_WISSE2011.pdf
33
http://accenet.org/default.asp?page=about&section=definition
32
Page 11 of 17
August 12, 2011
At the undergraduate level, Carleton University does offer its fourth-year engineering students a course in
clinical engineering through the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering. The course is intended to
introduce students to the profession of clinical engineering and is suggested for those interested in biomedical
engineering, clinical engineering, or medical informatics. 34
At the graduate level, the University of Torontos Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering offers a
Clinical Engineering Master of Health Science. The program is said to prepare engineers to innovate new
solutions to clinical challenges, to enhance patient safety, and to optimize delivery, integration and
management of contemporary technology-mediated healthcare. The Institute also offers a clinical engineering
concentration within its PhD program. 35
At the professional level, clinical engineering societies currently exist in Alberta, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada,
and a clinical engineering certification program is administered through the Healthcare Technology
Certification Commission and the Canadian Board of Examiners for Clinical Engineering Certification. 36
Conclusion
It is clear that traditional medical equipment will continue to grow in complexity and that healthcare
technology will continue to extend into the realm of information and communications systems. Clinical
engineering is a bridge that links medicine and engineering, a role that is becoming increasingly more
important as clinical medicine becomes more and more dependent on technology and sophisticated
equipment. Clinical engineering appears to be gaining recognition as the field responsible for assessing,
managing, and solving problems within an industry that sees significant intersection and interaction between
healthcare and engineering.
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 multidisciplinary 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,
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/courses/courseOutlines/Winter/SYSC4202_W11.pdf
http://ibbme.utoronto.ca/pro/clinicaleng/overview.htm
36
http://www.cmbes.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189&Itemid=212
37
http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/archeng/archeng.pdf
34
35
Page 12 of 17
August 12, 2011
students are required to concentrate on one of these systems, while in others, they can receive a generalist
architectural or building engineering degree.38
Situation
Many American universities offer accredited undergraduate degree programs in architectural engineering,
however, in Canada the title is not widely used.
The Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering at Concordia University offers undergraduate
and graduate programs in building engineering. The programs aim to provide their graduates with an
education that focuses on the planning, design, construction, operation, renovation, and maintenance of
buildings, as well as with their impacts on the surrounding environment. The interdisciplinary nature of the
programs integrates pertinent knowledge from various disciplines, including civil engineering for building
structures and foundation; mechanical engineering for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system, and for
mechanical service systems; electrical engineering for power distribution, control, and electrical systems;
physics for building science, lighting and acoustics; chemistry and biology for indoor air quality; architecture for
form, function, building codes and specifications; and economics for project planning and scheduling.
Concordias programs are designed to meet the needs of the construction industry by providing engineers
familiar with the overall design of built facilities. To reflect the increasing dependence of computer technology
in engineering, the Department also offers an information technology option within the building engineering
program. 39 A similar program entitled Gnie de la construction is also offered through lcole de technologie
suprieure in Quebec. 40
As mentioned earlier in this report, Carleton University is offering a new undergraduate program in
Architectural Conservation and Sustainability Engineering, with first graduates expected in 2015. Blending
engineering and architecture, the program offers a choice of two streams of study: the structural stream and
the environmental stream. In the first two years, students in both streams study a similar core of courses in
engineering, math, science and introductory architecture. In the third and fourth years of the program, the
streams become more specialized. The structural stream concentrates on conservation and sustainability in the
design of new structures, and the assessment and retrofit of existing structures. The environmental stream
teaches sustainable building practices with a focus on water quality and conservation, air quality, life cycle
analysis, and disposal of materials and waste streams. Students in both streams also study green building
design and rehabilitation of heritage buildings. 41
An undergraduate program in Ocean and Naval Architectural Engineering is offered through Memorial
University and includes two related but distinct areas. Naval architectural engineers conceive, design and
construct ships, offshore structures and other floating equipment to serve the needs of the ocean-going
community. A naval engineer has a working knowledge of several disciplines and expertise in one of the basic
areas of structural, hydro-dynamical or marine systems design. On the other hand, an ocean engineer develops
and designs floating, underwater and bottom-sited systems, wave-measuring buoys, underwater vehicles,
sonar and other acoustic systems, offshore platforms and shoreline facilities, such as harbours and artificial
islands. The design of large structures such as ships and drill rigs requires an understanding of the many facets
of design: function, strength, appearance and, especially important at sea, safety. 42
38
http://www.bcee.concordia.ca/index.php/Building_Engineering
40
http://www.etsmtl.ca/Programmes-Etudes/1er-cycle/Bac/7921
41
www2.carleton.ca/engineering-design/ccms/wp-content/ccmsfiles/Architectural_Conservation_and_Sustainability1.pdf
42
http://www.engr.mun.ca/programs/undergraduate/ocean_naval/
39
Page 13 of 17
August 12, 2011
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 NASA 44 and the Royal Society of the
United Kingdom 45 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.
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf
45
http://royalsociety.org/Stop-emitting-CO2-or-geoengineering-could-be-our-only-hope/
46
http://library.trocaire.edu/pdf/news/Climate.pdf
47
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3443/
48
"Geoengineering the climate". The Royal Society. 2009.
http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768.
43
44
Page 14 of 17
August 12, 2011
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
51
products.
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.
http://scpd.stanford.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=8984957
John L. McGuire, Horst Hasskarl, Gerd Bode, Ingrid Klingmann, Manuel Zahn "Pharmaceuticals, General Survey"
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2007.
51
http://chemeng.adelaide.edu.au/programs/pharmaceutical/about/
52
http://www.lsu.edu/studentorgs/ispe/Welcome_files/PHARMACEUTICAL%20ENGINEERING.pdf
53
http://chemeng.adelaide.edu.au/programs/pharmaceutical/about/
49
50
Page 15 of 17
August 12, 2011
In Canada, the cole Polytechnique de Montral has identified pharmaceutical engineering as a promising area
of growth. The feedback received from our emerging areas survey revealed that the institution is considering
future development of courses in this area through their department of chemical engineering to promote what
they consider to be a cutting-edge field.
In the United States, the New Jersey Institute of Technology offers a Master of Science in Pharmaceutical
Engineering through their Department of Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering. The program is
said to emphasize the engineering aspects of drug manufacturing, pharmaceutical production, pharmaceutical
development, and pharmaceutical operations.54
Similarly, the University of Michigan offers a Master of Engineering program in pharmaceutical engineering as a
joint venture between its Colleges of Pharmacy and Engineering 55, and Rutgers University offers graduate-level
programs in pharmaceutical engineering at both the masters and doctorate levels, administered by their
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering. 56
Conclusion
While still relatively new, the field of pharmaceutical engineering aims to provide engineers with the requisite
skills to work in the rapidly evolving regulatory framework that determines pharmaceutical product design and
manufacturing processes. The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rigorous technological requirements
and highly regulated work environments, and the goal of pharmaceutical engineering programs is to prepare
students for this environment with the ability to adapt to the fast-paced changes associated with this industry.
Academic programs dedicated to this field of study are few at the moment, but the existence of such
organizations as the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering 57, founded in 1980, provides some
evidence that this discipline may continue to grow in the coming years.
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 years scan included:
antibody engineering
educational engineering
vaccine engineering
labour market engineering
production engineering
54
http://catalog.njit.edu/graduate/programs/pharmaceuticaleng.php
http://pharmacy.umich.edu/pharmacy/master_of_engineering_-_pharmaceutical_engineering
56
http://pharmeng.rutgers.edu/
57
http://www.ispe.org/cs/about_ispe_section/overview
55
Page 16 of 17
August 12, 2011
infostructure engineering
data engineering
earth systems engineering
mathematical and modeling engineering
packaging engineering
claytronics
haptics
While references to these terms and concepts do exist, insufficient evidence was found to expand on any of
these in terms of emerging areas of engineering practice. However, as these fields evolve, they may be
appropriate for inclusion in future iterations of Engineers Canadas Emerging Areas of Engineering Practice
Report.
Page 17 of 17
August 12, 2011
C-476-2.4
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.
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 C476-2.4, Appendix E(i)
Prepared by: Diane Freeman, P.Eng. Chair National Framework Task Force
PEOs National Framework Task Force (NFTF) has completed its review of the three
Canadian Framework for Licensure (CFL) elements. The CFL has completed the research,
development, consultation, analysis, and has obtained the concurrence of many constituent
associations for three elements of the framework. The NFTF has had each element peer
reviewed by the appropriate PEO Committee. The elements are presented individually for
Council concurrence.
The CFL accepted the NFTFs recommendation to use change from constituent association
approval to concurrence as approval for the element by a constituent association
actually would occur once it amends the appropriate governing documents. At this stage
constituent associations are providing an agreement in opinion as to what is presented in
the document. The CFL process facilities revisiting elements as may be required.
The elements are presented individually for endorsement by the Engineers Canada Board.
The overview of the process is set out in Appendix A and a status report is present in
Appendix B.
2. Recommendation and Rationale
The NFTF recommends that Council concur with elements as presented. Comments from
the peer reviewers for all three elements have been materially incorporated in the attached
documents.
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.
At the consultation stage, PEO surveyed licence holders. The NFTF provided comments
accordance with the CFL process.
The Policy Direction and Key Considerations documents for concurrence were provided to:
CFL Element - Policy Direction and Key
Considerations
Accountability of Engineering
Organizations
Negotiating International Recognition
Agreements
PEO Peer Review

Enforcement Committee
Experience Requirement Committee sub
committee
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
2 | Page
C-476-2.4
Appendix A

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.
1|P age
Canadian Framework for Licensure

Element Creation, Design and Development
Start *
The design process involves feedback loops at all stages.

* at any point, receipt of new information or changing circumstances could re-start the process.
Process for the Development of each Element

of the Canadian Framework for Licensure
Input
Research
A framework
element
Details
Summarize the current
practices/legislation of the
engineering regulators and others
Identify promising practices
Development
Summary with
supporting
research
Develop consultation document

with a purpose statement,
preliminary key considerations and
supporting research
Output
Facilitated By
Summary with
supporting
research
Engineers Canada
Consultation
document
CEO Group
Draft purpose
statement and
key
considerations
Constituent
Associations and
Engineers Canada
Confirmed key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
CEO Group
Constituent
Associations
Engineers Canada
Board of Directors
Consult with stakeholders through

the Constituent Associations
Consultation
Consultation
document
Engineers Canada summarizes

input
Engineers Canada refines the
consultation document
New information may require restarting the process
Draft purpose
statement and
key
considerations
Review feedback from consultation
Approval
Confirmed key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
Consider the key considerations

and proposed policy direction
If consensus is not achieved, the
process can be re-started
Approved key
considerations
and proposed
policy direction
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
Implementation
Element of the
Canadian
Framework for
Licensure
Analysis
Confirm key considerations

Develop proposed policy direction
Engineers Canada develops a

guideline to support
implementation of the element
Constituent Associations adopt and
implement the element
Enhanced
regulatory
abilities
Engineers Canada
Constituent
Associations
Consensus will be based on Engineers Canadas voting procedures for the meeting of members (2/3 of the Members
representing at least 60% of the Registrants)
C-476-2.4
Appendix B

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

CA Concur.
Endorse
Target
Target
July 13 2011
Oct 2011
Feb 2012
June 18 11
July 13 2011
Nov 2011
Feb 2012
Feb 23 2011
June 18 11
July 13 2011
Dec 2011
Feb 2012
May 2011
July 13 2011
Nov 30 2011
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Sept 2011
Oct 3 2011
Feb 1 2012
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Sept 2011
Oct 3 2011
Feb 1 2012
Feb 22 2012
June 2012
Jan 2012
Feb 22 2012
Jan 2012
May 2012
Feb 2012
May 2012
Feb 2012
May 2012
Discipline - "jurisdiction"
Mar 2012
May 2012
Membership vs. licensure

Definition of the practice of
professional engineering
Complaints
Apr 2012
July 2012
May 2012
July 2012
June 2012
Oct 2012
Discipline process
July 2012
Oct 2012
Enforcement
Aug 2012
Oct 2012
Fee Setting Power

Relationships with Other
Professions
Governance
Sept 2012
Feb 2013
Oct 2012
Feb 2013
Nov 2012
Feb 2013
Objects of the Engineering Act

Licensure - acceptable forms of
identification
Dec 2012
Feb 2013
Jan 2013
May 2013
Continuing Professional
Development
Accountability of Engineering
Organizations
Negotiating International
Agreements
Fairness & Service Level Norms
Licensing Requirements and
Competencies Lim. Licence
Competencies - the P.Eng.
Competencies - EITs
Competencies - Provisional
Competencies - Temporary
Discipline - "portability"
Research
Development
Consultation
(planned)
(CEO review)
Due Date
Jan 2011
Feb 23 2011
June 18 11
Feb 2011
Feb 23 2011
Feb 2011
Att 5.10.1c_CFL Status Report.docx
CEO Analysis
Implement
Page 1 of 3

Insurance requirement for
engineers
Licensing other - classes, life
members, reduced fees, etc.
Discipline and inter-association
applicants
Disclosure of information in the
public interest (disicpline)
Research
Development
Consultation
(planned)
(CEO review)
Due Date
Jan 2013
May 2013
Jan 2013
May 2013
Feb 2013
May 2013
Mar 2013
May 2013
CEO Analysis
CA Concur.
Endorse
Target
Target
Implement
Step 3 Constituent Association Consultation Number Reporting

The following constituent associations have offered comments to the elements:
Constituent Associations
CFL Element
% Reg
NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
YK
NW
12
100.0%
12
100.0%
Negotiating International Agreements
12
100.0%
Fairness & Service Level Norms
59.5%
Licensing Requirements and Comp. - Limited Licence
4.3%
Licensing Requirements and Competencies - P.Eng.
4.3%
Page 2 of 3

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
9
8
9
65.1%
64.7%
65.1%

NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
YK
NW
1
1
It should be noted that the first three elements (Continuing professional development, Accountability of
engineering organizations, and Negotiating International Agreements) were revised during the approval
process. The following organizations had approved the first version of the documents:
CFL Element
NL
NS
PE
NB
QC
ON
MB
SK
AB
BC
YK
NW
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.
Page 3 of 3
C-476-2.4
Appendix C(i)

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.
NOTE: Research and results from the consultation for this element can be found on the CFL SharePoint site. Details
for implementation will be developed at Step 7.
C-476-2.4
Appendix C(ii)

Corporate Registration
Research
Current Situation within Engineering Associations in Canada
APEGBC
APEGGA
Name
Details
n/a
Permit to
Practice
APEGS
APEGM
PEO
Certificate of
Authorization
Certificate of
Authorization
Certificate of
Authorization
OIQ
APEGNB
n/a
Certificate of
Authorization
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
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
Any corporation, partnership or other legal entity providing engineering
services to the public
Corporate seal must be signed by the Responsible Member
$346 per year. Reduced fees for sole practitioners (one P.Eng. only)
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
All partnerships, associations of persons or corporations providing
professional services to the public
Must list all engineers working at the company
$280.01 to apply and per year. Double ($560.02/yr) for non-resident
Corporate Registration Guiding Principles and Research.doc
Page 1 of 7

Engineers
Nova Scotia
Certificate of
Compliance
Engineers
PEI
Certificate of
Authorization
PEGNL
Permit to
Practice
APEY
Permit to
Practice
NAPEG
Permit to
Practice
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
Any partnership, association of persons or corporation practising professional
engineering (regardless of whether offering to the public or not)
Must designate a responsible individual who is a member of the association
$150.00 per year.
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
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 fulltime 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 reqd)
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)
A Responsible Member (or Members, for larger organizations) must be
designated on the Permit to Practice. This person must be a partner or fulltime 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.
Page 2 of 7

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.
Page 3 of 7
The majority of professional engineers are employee engineers, working within business entities.
These employee engineers do not necessarily work for a professional engineer, and professional
engineers do not necessarily make the decisions or control the voting shares for their businesses.
The decisions of business entities may not be directly covered by the Code of Ethics or any other
practice standards or guidelines.
The compliance of individual practitioners with engineering legislation is directed by the
organizational culture in which the individual engineer practises.
In Canada, incorporated business entities must register in every province in which they operate.
Some of the regulators use a narrow definition of the term 'public' regarding the application of their
Act, such that, engineers working for the employers and if the work is for the employer (even the
ultimate user is not the employer), the engineer is not considered to be providing services to the
public and in this case the drawings do not need to be sealed nor should the company require
corporate registration. Consistent application to protect the public should be developed.
It is recommended that the following Guiding Principles form the basis for all Corporate
Licensure policies:
1. All organizations that manage the delivery of engineering services are held accountable to uphold
and protect the requirements set out in engineering legislation.
2. Officers and directors of those organizations must ensure that these requirements are met.
3. Organizations should be accountable for the engineering services provided and for the licence
holders offering those services.
4. Corporate registration systems should address registration across Canada.
5. All organizations providing engineering services should be registered.
6. Requirements regarding the use of the term engineering in corporate names are necessary.
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.
Page 4 of 7

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 governments 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 CAs:
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
Page 5 of 7

$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
o
Architects
BC: certificate of practice, application $138 sole proprietor, $193 corporation, $76 branch office;
annual dues $319/yr up to 2 people (total staff), $352/yr 3-5, $512/yr 6-10, +$171 for each
additional increment of 1-5 additional people
AB: register firms and do practice reviews
SK: $200/application + $200/yr,
MB: $157 or $210 application (certificate of authority)
Page 6 of 7
ON: $282 application, $465/yr for first reg member + $350/additional architect or technologist
(certificate of practice),
NB: $600/member, for certificate of practice
NS: registers firms
PEI: Certificate of Practice, $300/application + $350/yr
NL: no corporate registration
NWT: permit to practice, application fee $250 for 1-2 members, $500 for 3-5, $750 for 6+. Fees are
$700 to $6000 depending on where located (NWT $200, other $5,000) and value of business in NWT
($1,000>250k business, $00<250k business)
Page 7 of 7
C-476-2.4
Appendix D(i)

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.
C-476-2.4
Appendix D(ii)

Research
MANDATORY
APEGGA
APEGS
Requirements
Annual reporting
of hours
Participation in
program
Hours
80/year
240/three yrs
80/year
240/three yrs
80/yr
recommended
240/three yrs
required
Audits?
Yes
Penalties
Can be struck
from register
No
None
Yes
Can be struck
from register
APEGNB
Annual
commitment
Engineers NS
Annual
declaration
Min. 60/year
240/three yrs
No
Can be struck
from register
Engineers PEI
Annual reporting
of hours
Min 60/year
240/three yrs
Yes
Can be struck
from register
PEGNL
Annual reporting
of hours
Min 60/year
240/three yrs
Yes
Can be struck
from register
Exemptions
Non-practising members, MITs,
(reduced hours for special cases)
Licence waivers may exempt
some members in special cases
Non-practising members, MITs,
(exemptions for special cases)
Non-practising members
(including those on leave or
unemployed)
Non-Practising members (leave,
unemployed, etc.), practising
part-time, exemptions for
special cases
Non-practising members have a
reduced hourly requirement,
(exemptions for special cases)
VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
APEGBC
Hope for mandatory in 2012; based on APEGGA model; have voluntary online recording centre
APEGM
Should be mandatory starting in 2012; based on APEGGA model
Have voluntary online recording centre, Council has passed direction to require a mandatory annual
PEO
declaration (regulations being developed)
Guideline exists; proposed program is based on self-evaluation of professional competencies and has
OIQ
been before the Office des professions since 2008
APEY
Based on APEGGA model
NAPEG
Based on APEGGA model
More than 35 American state boards of engineers require continuing professional development
Of the three engineering associations that Engineers Canada has full professional-level Mutual
Recognition Agreements with - Engineers Australia, Engineers Ireland and the Hong Kong Institute
of Engineers two have mandatory continuing professional development programs (Australia and
Hong Kong) and one supports employer-led programs
CPD Guiding Principles and Research.doc
Page 1 of 4
The Engineering Council of the United Kingdom, the Institution of Professional Engineers of New
Zealand, and the Institution of Professional Engineers of Japan support continuing professional
development programs by offering courses and endorsing employer-led programs
The Engineering Council of South Africa has a mandatory continuing professional development
program
APEC Engineers and members of the Engineers Mobility Forum of the International Engineering
Alliance are required to maintain their continuing professional development at a satisfactory level
FEANI (Fdration Europenne d'Associations Nationales d'Ingnieurs, or the federation of
professional engineering associations from 31 European countries) urges all of its national member
organizations to adopt continuing professional development requirements
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.
All Engineering Acts state that the mandate of the association is protection of the public
In order for the public to be protected, engineers must practise competently.
All Codes of Ethics have a requirement for professional engineers to only practice in areas where
they are competent.
Career changes are common, which results in professional engineers needing to acquire new skills
throughout their careers:
The typical US worker today is holding a job which has lasted or will last eight years 2
By age 44, individuals born between 1957 and 1964 in the US had an average of eleven jobs 3
Engineering is a technology-based profession and the rate of change of technology is increasing
For example: computer speed (per unit cost) doubled every three years between 1910 and
1950, doubled every two years between 1950 and 1966, and is now doubling every year 4
This increasing rate of change as well as increasing specialization create rapid change in knowledge
requirements within professional practice.
Assessment Strategies Inc., Licensure, Certification, and Continuing Competence Practices among Canadian
Regulated Professions, March 1999.
2
The Importance of Lifetime Jobs in United States Economy Robert E. Hall, Stanford University,
http://www.stanford.edu/~rehall/Importance-AER-Sep-1982.pdf
3
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. News Release #USDL-10-1243 September 10, 2010.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf
4
Kurzweil, Ray (2001, Essay: The Law of Accelerating Returns)
Page 2 of 4
Some observers have suggested that there is a new cynicism on the part of government and society
in regards to the system of self-regulation 5
The perceived societal value of professional self-regulation tends to ebb and flow, and currently
scepticism of the societal value of professional self-regulation is at an all time high.
Professional organizations are under increased scrutiny by government, the public, media, and
consumer groups.
This scepticism has resulted in meta-regulation (regulating the regulators, or controlling the
process of regulation itself).
Examples of meta-regulation include provincial Fairness legislation, the federal Agreement on
Internal Trade and the loss of self-regulation in the British healthcare system.
It is therefore increasingly important that the engineering regulators not only work to protect the
public, but also ensure that they are seen to be protecting the public.
Engineering Associations employ a number of techniques to assess the credentials and promote the
improvement of professional competence including having admission standards, continuing
professional development programs, practice guidelines, practice reviews of individuals or firms,
and disciplinary orders. These techniques have the following advantages and disadvantages:
Technique
Admission standards
Advantage
Thorough check of credentials
Continuing Professional
Development Program
Applies to all registrants
Practice Guidelines
Engineering association can

clearly set a standard
Proactively evaluates actual
practice
Evaluates actual practice
Practice Reviews
Investigation Process
Investigations as a result
of a public complaint
Disciplinary Orders
Evaluates actual practice

Specific and targeted to the
individual engineer
Disadvantage
Only performed once, at point of
entry to the profession
Registrants resistance to
mandatory programs
CPD hours competence
Use of the guidelines is at the
discretion of each engineer
Only a minority of professional
engineers are evaluated
Reactive measure only
Reactive measure with a narrow
focus
Reactive measure only
Casey, James T. Continuing Professional Development Programs: A Transition to a New Paradigm
Page 3 of 4

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
Page 4 of 4
C-476-2.4
Appendix E(i)

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.
C-476-2.4
Appendix E(ii)

Authority to Conclude International Agreements
Research
Texas
(2010)
NAFTA
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
Ireland
(2009)
Hong
Kong
(2004)
Australia
(2007)
APEC
Status of International
Agreements with
CTI *
(2006)
Engineers Canada has entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements at the full professional level with
entities licensing engineers in other countries. In addition, Engineers Canada is a member of the
International Engineering Alliance, which supports the register of APEC engineers. The following table
summarizes which associations have ratified those agreements or use the register.
In addition, some associations have concluded their own agreements, or made decisions related to
international applicants, as follows:
APEGBC
APEGGA
APEGS
APEGM
OIQ
Administer the APEC/EMF register for Canadian Professional Engineers

Accept the NCEES Record Book of United States PEs, similar to what the
states do for one another
Accept the NCEES Record Book of United States PEs, similar to what the
states do for one another
Accept Texas PEs as temporary members (under NAFTA)
Accept PEs from United States for Temporary Licensure
Office des Professions is moving towards recognition for French engineers
International Agreements Guiding Principles and Research.doc
Page 1 of 3

Although many US states allow applicants to register by comity if they are licensed in another
state, this process simply exists to allow applicants to show that they have already met the same
requirements for licensure as each state requires (accredited degree, FE & PE exams, references) as
opposed to re-writing their exams, providing proof of degree, etc.
Only Texas has entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements.
Many of the members of the International Engineering Alliance also have Mutual Recognition
Agreements with one another, or offer membership to those who are registered with another
member of the Alliance. The members who participate in such activities include:
o Australia (Engineers Australia )
o Chinese Taipei (Chinese Institute of Engineers)
o Hong Kong China (Hong Kong Institution of Engineers)
o India (Institution of Engineers India)
o Ireland (Engineers Ireland)
o Japan (Institution of Professional Engineers Japan)
o Korea (Korean Professional Engineers Association)
o Malaysia (Institution of Engineers Malaysia)
o New Zealand (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand)
o Singapore (Institution of Engineers Singapore)
o South Africa (Engineering Council of South Africa)
o Sri Lanka (Institution of Engineers Sri Lanka)
o United Kingdom (Engineering Council United Kingdom)
The Federation of Law Societies has established a National Committee on Accreditation to examine
the qualifications of foreign applicants, but they have not entered into Mutual Recognition
Agreements.
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has discontinued the process of assessing
Postgraduate Medical Education systems (PGME) for International Medical Graduate (IMG)
applicants seeking their certification, and they do not enter into Mutual Recognition Agreements.
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants not only enters into Mutual Recognition
Agreements, but has publicly-available guidelines for those organizations wishing to pursue such an
agreement with them. Agreements currently exist with Australia, Belgium, France, Ireland, Hong
Kong, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
Architecture Canada (the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada) is the monitoring committee for
the APEC register of architects, and Architecture Canada also seeks to facilitate the negotiation of
mutual recognition agreements.
Mutual Recognition Agreements serve several purposes they facilitate the licensing of some
international applicants, they provide a service for Canadian engineers who practice abroad, and
Page 2 of 3
they allow the Canadian engineering profession to interact with the global engineering community.
See the attached Value Statement for MRAs v8.doc.
Of the international applicants for licensure across Canada in 2009, 11.8% applied under an
academic level international agreement. In 2009, 1.2% of these applicants came from countries
which had full professional level Mutual Recognition Agreements with Engineers Canada at that
time (Australia, Hong Kong & Ireland). Of those 1.2% (69 applicants), only 8 individuals actually
applied under the conditions of a Mutual Recognition Agreement.
In Quebec, OIQ does not have the authority to ratify full professional level Mutual Recognition
Agreements. This authority rests with the Office des Professions
Because of the Agreement on Internal Trade, applicants who are accepted through any international
agreement by one association gain access to all associations.
It is recommended that the following Guiding Principles form the basis for the development
of a process to negotiate international agreements:
1. Upholding and protecting the public interest in Canada is the foremost goal in
2.
3.
4.
5.
negotiating Mutual Recognition Agreements.

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.
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.).
Mutual Recognition Agreements serve to facilitate the mobility of Canadian
professional engineers abroad.
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
Page 3 of 3
C-476-3.1
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, EDCs two LGA members and two elected members of Council.
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 Mrta Ecsedi, Rakesh Shreewastav, Sharon Reid, Rob Willson and Chris Taylor to
the Equity and Diversity Committee Peer Review Sub-committee.
Prepared by: Mrta Ecsedi, P.Eng., Chair of the Equity and Diversity Committee.
Motion Sponsor: Rakesh Shreewastav, P.Eng.

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 Councils 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 Councils 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.
Process
Followed
Council
Identified
Review
Actual
Motion
Review

Following Councils 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.
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).
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
Page 2 of 2
C-476-3.1
Appendix A
Appendix A: Chronology and motion history PEO Equity and Diversity Policy
Meeting Date
Motion Approved
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.
C-476-3.1
Appendix B
Equity and Diversity Policy & Guidelines for Implementation

EQUITY AND DIVERSITY POLICY
Purpose
The objective of this policy is that PEOs 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 PEOs 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 PEOs operations as measured through research,
monitoring of training and development, cultural interpretation and community partnerships.
It is expected that the policy will be integrated into the workings of PEO through a phased approach.
Monitoring and evaluation of compliance will take this into account.
The core challenge for PEO is to create an organizational culture that fosters critical self-reflection, where we
are all accountable for learning about and appreciating differences among our employees, applicants,
members and partners. Equity and diversity awareness and capacity building is an ongoing, evolving,
learning process for all PEO stakeholders.
PEOs Position Paper on Equity and Diversity states that, through the EDC, PEO will develop an initial 3-year
equity and diversity action plan that includes:
Data collection.
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 EDCs data collection through member survey and self-identification, and
functionality review of current membership database.
Year 2 Objective
All of Council Executive and two-thirds of Councillors attend E&D training.
Council Agenda item to discuss review of its own processes and new ways to ensure the organization
is responsible and answerable to its members, staff and stakeholders on these matters.
2.
That PEO deliver ongoing information, training and resource support to help all staff, volunteers,
committee and board members develop capacity to address equity and diversity issues and
understand their rights and responsibilities. That such training is a fundamental part of orientation for
new volunteers and staff.
Year 1 Objective
The CEO/Registrar requires staff responsible for Engineering Dimensions and Council requires
volunteers responsible for Regional Congresses to communicate the content of the Equity and
Diversity Policy and Guidelines to PEO members and staff.
Year 2 Objective
Council includes attendance at E&D training as a performance expectation for Committee Chairs and
staff responsible for committees.
3.
That PEO seek to incorporate equity and diversity provisions in its organizational decision-making,
visioning and strategic planning.
Note: Policy Statement 3 is a long term-goal as part of a phased-in approach to Policy implementation.
Year 2 Objective
Based on the results of the Year 1 activities described in this document, EDC will recommend to
Council an appropriate response to Policy Statement 3.
4.
That PEO develop ways to support committees and task forces in incorporating specific, measurable
equity and diversity provisions into their annual work and human resource plans.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to develop guidelines as to what they want the committees to embed in the process.
Year 2 Objective
People Development staff and Committee Advisors to provide support to volunteer committee
members in this activity.
5.
That plans for outreach to prospective licensees be analysed for sensitivity to the diversity of Ontarios
culture as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code. That such activities be reported on in annual
program reviews.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to communicate policy objectives at Regional Congresses.
Year 2 Objective
PEO mentorship programs are modified to incorporate outreach to and representation of diverse
groups.
6.
That PEO provide guidance to staff and volunteers about their roles in implementing this policy.
Year 1 Objective
EDC to develop information sessions about the Policy.
Year 2 Objective
Sessions are attended by one-third of Chapter and committee volunteers and PEO staff.
Overview of sessions is published in Engineering Dimensions and posted on the PEO website.
7.
That PEO actively solicit viewpoints from diverse groups (as defined by the OHRC) within PEO and in
the communities it serves and seeks to serve.
Year 1
Member survey (see Action Plan, on pg. 1) to involve ACV in ensuring outreach to diverse groups
within PEO.
Year 2
EDC and ACV to collaborate on gathering feedback about understanding and effectiveness of the
equity and diversity policy within PEO.
8.
That PEOs activities in recruitment and retention of staff and volunteers have a focus on achieving
equity and increasing diversity within the engineering profession.
Year 1
Engineering Dimensions and the PEO website be analyzed for E&D in its representations of engineers
and PEO stakeholders. Collaborate with ACV on volunteer orientation program.
Year 2
Evaluate results of year one and plan ongoing activities and training.
9.
That PEO seek to identify and work to remove barriers that limit access to its services and programs in
areas such as information dissemination, human resources, physical space, and cultural difference.
Year 1
CEO to instruct IT department to set up and publicize on the PEO website an interactive forum to
identify accessibility limits to the site.
Year 2
EDC works with Committee and Chapter Chairs to implement recommendations from the forum.
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.
Mechanism for PEO Staff
PEO staff that have a complaint against the E&D Policy are governed by the Anti-Workplace Harassment
Policy.
Mechanisms for Members
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.
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 Committees
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 coordinating 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.
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:
1. Practitioners believe that the only problem that needs to be addressed is the
lack of consistency in the quality of construction drawings and the lack of
coordination between designers.
2. Construction drawings are often incomplete, lack detail and appropriate
information.
3. Though some stated that there was no problem with the current field review
process some suggested that each aspect of the building structural system
should be reviewed by the engineer responsible for its design.
4. There was nearly unanimous agreement that there is no need to have a single
engineer take responsibility for the design of the entire building or for
conducting field review of the entire building.
5. The respondents did suggest that there should be a single engineer in each
discipline (for example, the designer of the primary structural system) who is
responsible for coordinating information flow between the various other
engineers providing designs in that discipline; however this engineer is not
responsible for those designs.
2. Current Situation
In Ontario, there is a requirement in the Ontario Building Code that all applications for
a building permit include drawings for the proposed building or alteration. The
Professional Engineers Act stipulates that professional engineers design buildings of
specific types.
The Professional Engineers Act requires all professional engineers providing these
drawings to be competent, to take responsibility for the work they undertake and to
seal the documents provided as an acknowledgment that they are taking responsibility.
The engineer who prepared the permit drawings often designs only the bare skeleton
of the building and provides only instructions to the other engineers who will design all
the other components. In a typical construction project, there may be many engineers
who have sealed drawings for various aspects of the work. Many of these drawings are
shop drawings prepared by contractors, manufacturers, or fabricators for items such as
the cladding, window systems, trusses and other structural components, and
miscellaneous steel for stairs and balconies. Each of the engineers sealing the shop
drawings for the various aspects of the work has exactly the same legal obligations and
liabilities as the engineer sealing the permit drawing. There is no distinction in any
legislation in Ontario between the engineer responsible for the permit drawings and the
engineers responsible for the drawings of the subsystems.
The Ontario Building Code further requires that the permit applicant retain professional
engineers to provide general review of all systems designed by a professional
engineer. Regulation 260/08 provides a practice standard for general review of
construction and PEO has a guideline covering this work. Generally, the general review
is carried out by the designer; however, this is not a requirement in either the Building
Code or the Professional Engineers Act.
Page 2 of 3
3. Next Steps
If Council approves Motion #2 the Professional Standards Committee will direct the
Structural Engineering Guideline Subcommittee to develop guideline recommendations
or standards that identify a specific practitioner on each project who will be responsible
for coordinating the flow of design information to all practitioner involved in the design
and review of structural components. That engineer will also be responsible for
reviewing shop drawings of all structural components to ensure that the various
elements can be assembled into a complete structure with no conflicts and no missing
elements.
The subcommittee will also develop standards for complete drawings on all aspects of
the structural system.
The Professional Standards Committee will consider how to extend this concept to the
mechanical and electrical disciplines and will form subcommittees as needed to
address this policy.
However, it is recognized that though PEO may wish a single engineer in each
discipline to take on this coordinating role, owners and developers may decide not to
provide for it in their contractual undertakings with engineers. PEO cannot impose on
an owner or developer the obligation to provide the designated engineer with the
authority or additional renumeration to carry out this work. Therefore, it is necessary to
encourage the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to change the Ontario Building
Code to make it an obligation on owners and developers to give this coordinating to an
engineer in each discipline. This is what occurred in British Columbia, Alberta and
Manitoba. It was not the engineering associations that made the coordinating role
possible; it was the provincial government agency that controlled the building code.
Therefore, Council, if it decides that implementing the coordinating professional
engineer is an important objective, will need to define a plan for working with the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and other stakeholders to revise the Building
Code to direct owners to retain a professional engineer in each discipline as a
coordinating engineer.
4. Appendices
Appendix A Policy Analysis
Appendix B Results, Post-Meeting Engineer of Record Survey
Appendix C Minutes, Structural Engineering in Buildings Guideline Subcommittee
Meeting, Janaury 11, 2012
Appendix D Letters of Assurance (British Columbia)
Appendix E General Review Commitment Form (Ontario)
Page 3 of 3
C-476-3.2
Appendix A
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.
Engineer of Record
The following analysis is based on a review of information and opinions provided by the
following:
1. discussions at the special meeting on the Engineer of Record that took place at PEO on
October 25, 2011
2. survey of members who attended the October 25, 2011 meeting
3. discussions at various meetings of the Structural Engineering in Buildings Guideline
Subcommittee
4. review of Building Codes in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia
5. review of Guidelines produced by APEGBC and APEGGA
6. email correspondence with Peter Mitchell, P. Eng., Director or Professional Practice,
APEGBC
7. correspondence from PEO members regarding the proposal
Definition of Issue
Council, at its September 2011 meeting, directed the CEO/Registrar and the Professional
Standards Committee to study and propose amendments to O. Reg. 941 and O. Reg. 260/08 to
incorporate an Engineer of Record. The motion indicates that the engineer of record
regulations will prescribe the following:
1. A single engineer who takes responsibility for the completeness and integrity of the
entirety of all design work done in each discipline (structural, electrical, or mechanical)
2. That field review for each system of the building under construction be done by the
engineer taking responsibility for that discipline.
Background
First, we must clarify what is meant by Engineer of Record. This term currently has no legal
definition in Ontario; it is merely a colloquialism. It is not a term of art widely used in the
industry so as to provide a generally accepted definition. The term is used differently by different
people in different contexts. Sometimes, the term is meant simply to indicate the engineer who
has sealed a drawing or other document. In this sense, all engineers who take responsibility for
work can be considered engineers of record. There can be several engineers taking responsibility
for various aspects of the design within a single discipline. For example, there could be design
engineers for the foundation, primary structural system design, fabricated steel components, and
miscellaneous steel components such as stairs and railings.
Building departments often use the term to mean the engineer who signed the General
Commitment form since that is the engineer on their records whom they are expected to contact
during construction. Since there is no legal requirement for the engineer who prepared the permit
drawings to carry out general review, the engineer called the engineer of record by the building
department is not necessarily the design engineer.
The term engineer of record is occasionally used informally by many people in Ontario to refer
to the engineer who prepared and sealed the permit drawings. Again there is no justification for
this use of the term in this way.
The engineer who prepared the permit drawings often designs only the bare skeleton of the
building and provides only instructions for the other engineers who will design all the other
components. In a typical construction project, there may be many engineers who have sealed
drawings for various aspects of the work. Many of these drawings are shop drawings prepared by
contractors, manufacturers, or fabricators for items such as the cladding, window systems,
trusses and other structural components, and miscellaneous steel for stairs and balconies. Each of
the engineers sealing the shop drawings for the various aspects of the work has exactly the same
legal obligations and liabilities as the engineer sealing the permit drawing. There is no distinction
in any legislation in Ontario between the engineer responsible for the permit drawings and the
engineers responsible for the drawings for the subsystems.
Since the structural drawings prepared for permit generally only provide the design of the
primary structural system this usage of the term is similar to the definition created by the Council
of American Structural Engineers (CASE):
The Structural Engineer of Record (SER) "perform[s] or supervise[s] the analysis, design,
and document preparation for the building structure and has knowledge of the
requirements for the load carrying structural system." The SER is responsible for the
design of the primary structural system, which is "the completed combination of elements
which serve to support the building's self-weight, the applicable live load which is based
upon the occupancy and use of the spaces, [and] the environmental loads such as wind,
seismic, and thermal."
In the CASE definition, the SER is responsible only for the primary structural system and has no
obligation to carry out field review.
However, this does not seem to be the intent of the proposal that was placed before Council. The
intent seems to be to create a position created by PEO regulations known as the engineer of
record who is responsible for overall coordination of all aspects of the building structure and for
general review of construction. However, the exact nature of the role and responsibilities
anticipated for the engineer of record was not clearly expressed in the motion so it is difficult to
ascertain what amendments to Regulations 941 and 260/08 are needed. This analysis will attempt
to clarify the many issues surrounding the possible roles and responsibilities that might be
assigned to an engineer of record in order to give Council the opportunity to clearly define its
intent.
Environmental Scan
The first step in this analysis is to review any similar positions currently in use in other Canadian
jurisdictions.
Three provinces British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have defined something similar to
the proposed concept of engineer of record in legislation. In each case the role is established
through the provincial Building Code not the legislation regulating the practice of professional
engineering.
i. British Columbia
There is a requirement in BC, established by the British Columbia Building Code (BCBC), for a
professional (either a professional engineer or architect) who is responsible for coordinating the
work of all design professionals working on the building project. This person is referred to as the
Coordinating Registered Professional. The description provided in Division C , Appendix A of
the BC Building Code under Item A-2.2.7.2(1)(a) Coordinating Registered Professional reads as
follows: The coordinating registered professional is responsible to ascertain that all Code
related aspects which are relevant to the project are clearly identified by each of the registered
professionals in the collection of Schedules B. If a registered professional of record has crossed
out any item on their Schedule B, the coordinating registered professional must confirm this item
is not applicable to the project or resolve the issue with the registered professional of record.
This is the position commonly referred to as the prime consultant. The APEGBC Guidelines
provides the following definition of this role:
A member of APEGBC, or a member of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia,
who has the responsibility to coordinate the design and field reviews of various registered
professionals for a building project. The role of the CRP is clearly defined in Division C,
Appendix A-2.2.7 in the BCBC and further documented in the Letters of Assurance
contained in the BCBC.
As noted in the above definition, the requirement for a Coordinating Registered Professional is
established in the Building Code. This is so because it is a requirement on the owner of the
project to retain a person who will fulfill this coordinating role. The Engineer and Geoscientist
Act (BC), like the Professional Engineers Act, does not provide the engineering regulator with
powers to impose obligations on persons other than members of the association. Therefore,
APEBGC cannot dictate to the owner of a building project to hire professional engineers for
specific roles; only legislation that is specifically empowered to govern the property owners,
such as the Building Code, can impose such requirements.
The BCBC also establishes the requirement for a Registered Professional of Record (RPR) who
is retained to undertake design work and field review for specific building systems. There is no
requirement for single RPR in each disciple or for the RPR to take responsibility for all the work
in a single discipline.
In British Columbia the Building Code is administered by the Building & Safety Standards
Branch, Ministry of Public Safety & Solicitor General. This department has published a Guide to
the Letters of Assurance in the B.C. Building Code. That guide states:
Most building projects described in Section 2.2.7 in Part 2 of Division C involve more
than one registered professional in more than one discipline, and often more than one
registered professional within a single discipline. Each registered professional is
responsible for the design and field review of the components of the plans and
supporting documents prepared by them.
The Guide also indicates that the RPR responsible for design does not need to be the one who
conducts field review of the building while it is under construction.
The Letters of Assurance were developed on the basis that the coordinating registered
professional and registered professionals of record would maintain their involvement
throughout the entire design and field review process. There may be rare
circumstances where this approach cannot be implemented due to a variety of causes.
The guide provides four examples of these rare cases including termination of the contract with
the RPR or CRP and the need to have a different RPR involved due to geographic distance. The
guide then provides a process for notification of the building department if any one of the
examples or a similar circumstance occurs.
The only RPR referred to in APEGBC guidelines is the structural engineer of record. The
APEGBC Guidelines for Professional Structural Engineering Services for Part 3 Building
Projects defines the structural engineer of record as follows:
Structural Engineer of Record (SER) or RPR for the Primary Structural System
A member with general responsibility for the structural integrity of the primary structural
system and for general conformance of secondary structural elements and specialty
structural elements with the primary structural system. A SER may be required to be
registered as Struct.Eng. (see above). The SER takes overall responsibility as the RPR for
all items under the structural discipline on the Schedule B of the Letters of Assurance in
the BCBC.
The APEGBC guideline also clearly states that the structural engineers designing secondary and
specialty structures must sign and seal their drawings indicating that they are responsible for the
design of those components. This indicates that APEGBC does not recognize the need to have a
single professional engineer responsible for all the work in a given discipline.
In order to respond to the Building Code requirement, APEGBC created the licence category of
Designated Structural Engineer. To obtain this licence a P. Eng. must complete educational
requirements above and beyond those required for the professional engineer licence. This licence
category on its own provides no rights to the holder. As can be seen from the attached extract
from the APEGBC website, a Designated Structural Engineer (DSE) is required only when a
municipality makes this a requirement of their building permit process. Unless a municipality
specifies that the permit drawings must be prepared by a Designated Structural Engineer, any P.
Eng. can prepare the drawings. The point is that APEGBC cannot impose restrictions on who can
provide permit drawings. The only legal restriction that exists is the one provided by the
Engineers and Geoscientists Act (BC) that requires engineering design work to be done by a
professional engineer. The only way for APEGBC to provide the DSE with exclusive rights to
prepare the permit drawings (i.e. to fulfill the generally understood role of Engineer of Record)
would be to impose a restriction on all P. Eng. licences that prohibits all other professional
engineers from preparing drawings for primary structures of buildings. The restriction would be
lifted from the licence when the holder obtains the DSE. It should be noted that APEGBC has
not taken this step so, unless the municipality refuses to take permit drawings from non-DSE
professional engineers, any licensed member can provide permit drawings.
Note that the only purpose of the Designated Structural Engineer certification is to create a
restriction on who may provide structural drawings for building permit application. This applies
only to designs for the primary structural system. The DSE does not make the holder responsible
for coordinating or overseeing all other structural designs, does not provide the DSE with control
over designs for secondary structural systems, and does not require the DSE to conduct general
review of construction. Those responsibilities, if they exist, are requirements established by the
Building Code.
ii. Alberta
A similar regime for design responsibility is established in Alberta through the Alberta Building
Code. That legislation establishes the requirement for the owner intending to construct a building
to retain a Coordinating Registered Professional. The CRP is required to coordinate all design
work and field reviews of the registered professionals of record required for the project.
The Alberta Building Code also requires that there is a Registered Professional of Record for
each of the four major disciplines (structural, mechanical, electrical, and geotechnical).
According to the Commitment Form the Registered Professional of Record is required to
coordinate the design work and field review for that component of the project for which the
professional of record is responsible in order to ensure the design will comply with the Alberta
Building Code.
iii. Manitoba
The Manitoba Building Code does not define a structural engineer of record or any other similar
role. However, Sentence 2.2.2.3 of the Code defines designers as the architects or professional
engineers who prepared the documents submitted for the building permit. The code also makes
the designer responsible for doing the following:
2.2.7.2.(1) The designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer
shall review construction of any building or part thereof to determine conformance of the
design.
2.2.7.3.(1) The designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer
shall review all shop drawings and other related documents relevant to the design to
determine conformance with the design.
2.2.7.4.(1) Workmanship, materials and all reports of material tests shall be review by the
designer or another suitably qualified person responsible to the designer during the
process of construction.
Therefore, the Manitoba Building Code requires the engineers who prepared the permit
documents must also review the building during construction and review all shop drawings to
ensure they conform to the design. Since the Code also has authority over the owners, they are
compelled to retain the designers for these additional roles.
Questions arising from the Environmental Scan
One consideration that any evaluation of the engineer of record issue must include is the
diversity of contractual arrangements that are utilized in the construction industry. In its simplest
form, a construction project involves three parties: an owner, a designer (architect or engineer),
the builder (usually called the general contractor). Traditionally, there are two contracts between
these parties as they work together to plan, design, and construct the project. The first contract is
the owner-designer contract, which involves planning, design, and construction administration.
The second contract is the owner-contractor contract, which involves construction. An indirect,
third-party relationship exist between the designer and the contractor due to these two contracts.
Though this arrangement was the traditional format it has been replaced, for many reasons, by
more complex arrangements.
An alternate contractual arrangement is design-build, in which the design and construction
services are contracted by a single entity known as the designbuild contractor. In contrast to
designtender arrangements, designbuild relies on a single point of responsibility contract and
is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by
overlapping the design phase and construction phase of a project.
In this arrangement, the design-builder hires architects and engineers to provide documents that
are sufficient for obtaining a building permit. This set of drawings will not necessarily be
detailed enough for construction purposes.
Once the permit is obtained the design-builder tenders the work to various sub-contractors. The
contractors are required by the terms of their contracts to hire professional designers to provide
drawings for the various subsystems or to obtain these drawings from their suppliers.
Another alternative project delivery scheme is project management. Project management is
distinguished from traditional construction management practices by the following:
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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Peter Mitchell [MITCHELL@apeg.bc.ca]

Friday, September 09, 2011 1:53 PM
Bernard Ennis
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 (APEGBCs Executive Director) sent me an e-mail that he received from
Michael Hogan asking for information on APEGBCs approach to developing the Engineer of
Record and another e-mail from Denis Dixon as Chair of PEOs Professional Practice
Committee and President Elect raising some issues regarding Mr. Hogans request. So not to be
seen as interfering in a PEO issue which appears to have some sensitivity I will leave it to you to
forward the information I have provided as you see fit.
1.
What was the reason(s) for creating these designations? Who initiated the idea?
DSE (Struct. Eng. )
The creation of the DSE designation was initiated in response to Recommendation 7 of the
Commissioner Inquiry Station Square Development August 1988 (the Closkey Commission)
which arose out of the collapse of approximately 6400 square feet of a roof structure over an
occupied Save-On-Foods supermarket on April 23, 1988. Recommendation 7 in the
Commissioners Report reads as follows:
The bylaws of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of British
Columbia should be amended to require that before registration as a structural engineer, the
competency of the structural engineer be tested by a special written examination or
additional supervised training, or both. Only engineers who qualify in this way should be
eligible to professionally certify drawings and calculations of Part 4 structures under the
building code.
CRP (Coordinating Registered Professional)
The term CRP was initiated in response to Recommendation 2 of the Commissioner Inquiry
Station Square Development August 1988 (the Closkey Commission). Recommendation 2 in
the Commissioners Report reads as follows:
The building code should be amended to incorporate standard letters of assurance to be
used throughout the province in connection with buildings governed by Part 4 of the code.
These letters should be required of the owner, and of architectural, structural, mechanical,
plumbing, and electrical services which are provided directly or indirectly by professionals,
prime consultants and sub-consultants.
The APEGBC Special Review Committee which advised on how to implement the
recommendations from the Closkey Commission supported the inclusion of a coordinating
registered professional when the Letters of Assurance were introduced into the BC Building
Code in 1992. The thought being that by implementing a CRP, engineering design and field
review services would be better coordinated resulting in a better finished product.
2. We note that the CRP is defined in Division C, Appendix A-2.2.7 in the BCBC. Can you
provide us with that description?
The description provided in Division C , Appendix A of the BC Building Code under Item
A-2.2.7.2(1)(a) Coordinating Registered Professional reads as follows: The coordinating
registered professional is responsible to ascertain that all Code related aspects which are
relevant to the project are clearly identified by each of the registered professionals in the
collection of Schedules B. If a registered professional of record has crossed out any item on
their Schedule B, the coordinating registered professional must confirm this item is not
applicable to the project or resolve the issue with the registered professional of record.
Also please see page 13 of the The Guide to The Letters of Assurance in the BC Building
Code 2006, updated December 2010 which can be viewed at
http://www.bccodes.ca/2006GuideLoA.pdf. A more detailed explanation of the role of the
CRP is explained there.
As provided for in Division C , Appendix A of the BC Building Code under Item A2.2.7.2.(1)(b) the purpose of Schedule B is to clearly identify the appropriate registered
professional of record who has the overall responsibility in each discipline for compliance
with the various code-related aspects of the project. Detailed design of certain building
components may be undertaken by other registered professionals. The registered professional
of record is responsible for monitoring the design work and field review of the other
registered professionals within their discipline for components listed in Schedule B (see the
attachment included for a sample Schedule B which identifies the list of all the design
components included in Schedule B). In the event that the other registered professionals
provide design and field review, the registered professional of record must be satisfied that
such design and field reviews have been performed and is responsible for Schedule C-B.
3. What was member response to the introduction of these designations? Did they think this
change was necessary?
The grade of membership of Designated Structural Engineer (Struct.Eng.) was established in
2002 when 76% of the membership that voted in favour of the bylaw creating the
designation. The structural engineering community strongly supported this initiative and felt
it was necessary. They had a voluntary industry group called the Division of Structural
Engineers with a membership of about 250 in 2000. The membership of the Division of
Structural Engineers held several meeting and votes within their membership which
overwhelmingly supported the creation of the Struct.Eng. designation.
From the period of 1994/95 (when practice reviews were initiated) until 2001 the results of
practice reviews for those practicing in the structural discipline showed a lower level of
compliance then those practicing in other disciplines. In the initial years approximately 1/3
of the structural engineers reviewed in a given year (the number reviewed in a given year
varied from 40 to less than 10) were identified as requiring improvement . This finding of
approximately 1/3 of the structural engineers that were practice reviewed being identified as
requiring improvement continued until 2001 when the bylaw was introduced. Since the DSE
bylaw was introduced the results have improved.
The term Coordinating Registered Professional was introduced through revisions to the BC
Building Code which received input from APEGBC and its members back in 1990. The
concept of having a CRP was supported both by APEGBC and the Architectural Institute of
BC. Both Associations and their respective memberships saw this change as being needed.
The goal was to achieve more complete engineering services and designs which are better
coordinated with the work of other design team members.
4. What was the publics (building departments, owners, contractors, architects) response?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Building departments seem to be waiting for the provincial government to implement the
requirement for a Struct.Eng. to be placed in the BC Building Code (except in the three
municipalities that have implemented a requirement that the structural design of buildings
falling under Part 3 of the Building Code which have to be designed to Part 4 must be carried
out by a P.Eng. having the Struct.Eng. grade of membership). Owners only seem to be
responsive if it is required in order to get a building permit in a specific municipality. They
did express concern that a municipality not implement it until there were enough
Struct.Eng.s in place to deal with the demand so the development of Part 3 buildings were
not impeded. This did not seem to be an issue for contractors nor a concern for architects.
CRP
Building Departments are in favour of this as there is better coordination between the various
engineering disciplines involved in a buildings design and field review.
Owners and contractors are both in favour due to the same reason as above.
Architects are in favour due to the same reason as above and in most projects they act as the
CRP. Through the Schedule A Letter of Assurance in the BC Building Code the CRP has the
authority to oversee that the design work and field reviews of the various disciplines involved
are properly coordinated. The enhanced fees associated with these coordination services are
seen as a positive by architects as they are most often engaged by the client as a CRP on a
building project.
5. How many members have obtained a DSE? What proportion of the engineers doing
structural engineering in BC does this represent?
108 members have the Struct.Eng. designation and this probably represents approximately
10% of the professional engineers practicing structural engineering in BC (approximate
number as members are not required to identify their specific field of practice).
6. We have observed that there may be concerns about increased liability for the CRP? Was this
an issue in BC?
Not that I am aware of. You should discuss this directly with ENCON and other professional
liability insurance providers. APEGBC is aware that when a liability insurance claim is made
which is specific to a particular engineering design discipline the CRP is often included in
the claim as poor coordination may have contributed to the problem which gave rise to the
claim.
7. We note that APEGBC is leaving the requirement for a DSE and CRP to the municipalities.
Why?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
The provincial government has granted municipalities the legislated authority to require the
use of professional engineers having specialist designations for the carrying out of particular
professional activities related to the design of a building if that grade of membership has
been established by APEGBC. APEGBC has not been granted the legislated authority to
stipulate when a Struct.Eng. is required. APEGBC only has the authority to grant the grade of
membership to those who meet the qualifications.
CRP
Division C, Part 2 clause 2.2.7.2. 1) of the BC Building Code reads as follows;
Before an owner obtains a building permit from an authority having jurisdiction, the owner
shall
a) retain a coordinating registered professional to coordinate all design work
Municipalities have the authority to issue building permits so they require the submission of
a Schedule A Letter of Assurance identifying the CRP before a building permit is issued.
8. Have many municipalities have adopted the requirements?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Vancouver, Burnaby and Langley. See the attached bulletin issued by the City of Burnaby as
an example of how the requirement for a Struct.Eng. was implemented by one municipality.
CRP
As identified in Item 7 above the BC Building Code requires that a CRP be used in all
municipalities as all municipalities have adopted the BC Building Code.
9. For those municipalities that have adopted it, why did they?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
APEGBCs understanding is that municipalities adopting the requirement for a Struct.Eng.
did so in order to assure that the structural engineering expertise being applied to Part 3
buildings within their municipality had the highest level of training and expertise reflected in
a grade of membership granted by APEGBC.
CRP
Municipalities have adopted the requirement for a CRP because of the provisions in the BC
Building Code which made it mandatory.
10. For those that have not, why are they not?
DSE (Struct.Eng.)
Some have expressed concern that there are not enough engineers with the Struct.Eng.
designation in their geographical area to meet the demand so that travel costs would be
incurred in order to bring in a Struct.Eng. from outside the area in order to complete a
particular project. Some municipalities do not see the justification and will only implement
the requirement for a Struct.Eng. if it is stipulated in the BC Building Code.
CRP
The requirement for a CRP applies to all municipalities because the provisions in the BC
Building Code make it mandatory.
11. The definition of field review in the APEGBC guideline says that the fields reviews are
provided by the registered professional of record responsible for the primary structural
system (the structural engineer of record), or the structural engineer providing supporting
structural engineering services to the registered professional of record. How is this enforced?
Is there legislation that says field review must be done by the designer? Under what
jurisdiction does APEGBC compel an owner to employ the designer as the field reviewer?
We find in Ontario that for many reasons the owner or architect do not want to have the
designer to continue as the field reviewer. Does this happen in BC?
There is no legislation requiring that field reviews be carried out by the structural engineer of
record that completed the design of the primary structural system. However this concept is
reinforced in three ways:
i) The Schedule B Letter of Assurance in the BC Building Code (see attached) only
provides for the name of one P.Eng. that is taking responsibility for the design and field
review activities so this promotes that both activities be undertaken by the same P.Eng.
ii) The Guide to The Letters of Assurance in the BC Building Code 2006, updated
December 2010 which is located on the provincial governments website at
http://www.bccodes.ca/2006GuideLoA.pdf includes text on page 17 that reads as follows;
It was also contemplated that the registered professional of record who signed a
Schedule B would be the same registered professional of record who signed the
Schedule C-B for that discipline. In order to maintain clear allocations of
responsibility and to avoid coordination and accountability gaps, this is the preferred
approach for all projects.
There may be rare circumstances where this approach cannot be implemented due to
a variety of causes.
The guideline then proceeds to provide some examples.
This concept is then further reinforced on page 21 of the Guide as it reads as follows;
The Letters of Assurance are based on the preferred and most common concept that
there is a single registered professional of record within each discipline who is
responsible for both the design and field review associated with that discipline. The
division of responsibilities for design and field review to two separate registered
professionals of record is undesirable and should be avoided. However, there are
instances, where a single, continuing registered professional of record within a
discipline may not be possible, and design and field review are performed by different
registered professionals of record.
iii) This is reinforced in the APEGBC Guidelines for Professional Structural Engineering
Services for Part 3 Building Projects. APEGBC has no jurisdiction to compel an owner
to employ the designer as the field reviewer.
Yes, in BC we find that the owner or architect may find reasons so that the designer does
not always continue as the field reviewer. Again we attempted to address this through the
three examples provided in my response to Item 11.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or require any clarification.
Peter
Peter R. Mitchell, P.Eng. | Director, Professional Practice, Standards & Development
Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of BC
200-4010 Regent Street, Burnaby, BC V5C 6N2
Direct: 604-412-4853 / Toll Free: 1-888-430-8035 ext. 4853
Fax: 604-430-8085
www.apeg.bc.ca
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 subcommittees
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

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

practitioners was that this was not a good idea.
from
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

Subcommittee suggested the following practice:
on
non-primary
elements.
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 nonprimary 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.
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.
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 contractors 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
fabricators poorly-designed weld of a hangar and the engineers incorrect sizing of a
beam.
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 onsite. 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 dont 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:
location as
The structural integrity is confusing term, should be removed from this
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
dont have a time.
S. John: If we clearly define in the Guideline the duties and responsibilities of structural
engineers, Owners will have to start paying for everything.
D. Tipler: The other designers should use the loads per current building code, not
expect us to provide all loads.
R. Radonjic-Vuksanovic: We have to define the primary and secondary structural
system. There may be some projects where curtain wall design or glazing design does
not affect the primary structure, and design loads can be used from building code so
primary structural engineer does not have to specify loads. However, joist design,
structural steel connection design etc. does not fall in that category.
Ex. Structural steel connection designers work directly depends on the design criteria
and loads primary structural engineer specified (or not) on his/her drawings.
N. Kennedy: We have to address the issues:
-field review and design review
-design of secondary structure: should it be on off the structural drawings?
Loads should be shown for the reference and for other designer to use them.
M. Moffat: Loading information should come to EOR for verification. EOR has to
provide the loads.
On page 6, PEO Guideline, Phase2 regarding the construction documents:
I think we should go back to should, not shall since it is the Guideline, not the
standard.
K. Chessman: Back to definitions of primary and second-tier structural engineer on
page 4 of PEO Guideline. Dont like the term Second-tier structural engineer.
It should be the Specialty engineer.
D. Ireland: I agree. Many people can be offended with this term.
N. Kennedy: I think there is mistake. It should be secondary structural engineer.
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 shouldnt 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
engineers 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 dont 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), Im 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 isnt an epidemic of structural
failures in buildings that have been constructed in Ontario. So I have to ask the question: What
problem is it that we are trying to solve with this proposal for an SER?
I have participated in several meetings at PEOs offices to discuss this issue of SER with other
engineers and contractors. I have heard issues tabled by contractors about missing information
on drawings and how drawings were more complete in the good old days. After those
meetings, I took the time to review numerous sets of drawings produced back in the good old
days, (30, 40, 50 years ago), by a variety of consultants. Based on my findings, for the most
part, those drawings would be considered schematic sketches by todays standards, and in my
opinion, the information required on todays drawings has increased exponentially.
Unfortunately, the timeframes given to produce drawings today has decreased, and compensation
for engineering consultants has fallen way behind other industries. I fail to see how enacting
SER legislation is going to improve this situation.
Incidentally, has anyone taken the time to find out if the introduction of the SER in B.C., AB,
and Manitoba resulted in any significant improvement in structural engineering services, drawing
quality, building quality, reduced construction extras, etc.? Before we change the current
delivery model for structural engineering services in Ontario, it would seem to me that we would
want to review the effectiveness of similar programs that are already in use in other provinces.
Before this completely goes off the rails like Bill 124, we have to clearly define the problem that
we are trying to solve. To date, other than anecdotal annoyances, I have not heard anything from
anyone to suggest that there is something systemically wrong with the way that structural
engineering services for buildings are being delivered in Ontario. If it is these anecdotal
annoyances that we are trying to resolve, SER legislation will not be effective.
Engineer C
I have been reading the various responses to the concept of SER and I agree that the overriding
principle must be protection of the public. My opinion is:
1.
Generally, an orderly and systematic design and co-ordination of the design of the
various components is the best way to achieve that goal.
2. The quality of the project structural drawings that we see when we act as a connection
design engineer has decreased in the past 30 years.
3. Design Build is a popular concept and owners in the private market are able to purchase
more components as "pre-eng". Further, owners are able to purchase and piece together
structural design services for various components and the various engineers are not paid
to coordinate their services and there is no requirement for them to do so. For example,
we designed the steel superstructure of a 5 storey office building for a steel fabricator as "
design build". The owner hired another engineer to design the foundations and the
masonry. There was limited co-ordination between the engineers and the owner looked
after the engineering of the other components. It worked out but that was only due to the
skill and experience of the owner/developer who was completely "hands-on". I dont feel
comfortable with the process and if I was a building official, I would feel even less
comfortable.
4. For the most part, I agree that most engineers want to do the best job they can. However,
I have met engineers who put on blinders and will look after the design of their
component of the design but dont care or have much less care about the other
components that they may be connected to or have an effect on. Unfortunately, the time
when one could count on everyone doing their best in all cases has passed. Therefore,
more regulations are required.
5. I believe there is value in being more transparent in the design process and assumptions
that have been used in the design. One of the functions of an SER would be to force that
transparency and for the various designers to be clear on what they have assumed and
what loads are transmitted to other components.
6. I hesitate to say it but the quality of the training and education of our Canadian graduates
has decreased over the past 20 years. Even more, there are more and more internationally
trained engineers who have a license. From my personal experience in the hiring and
reviewing the work of internationally trained engineers, their training, abilities and
knowledge of Canadian codes and practices is not uniform and in many cases, is substandard. Yet, they have the same license as an engineer with a designated consulting
engineer with 30 years experience to design and co-ordinate all the structural systems of a
one to a 50 storey building. In my view, it is only a matter of time until we have a major
collapse or collapses because of inferior design.
7. The SER idea is a concept that has been used in several other provinces and the
United States. As a proactive step, I feel it is time for the PEO to be the leader in our
province in suggesting that there be a seasoned engineer to co-ordinate the design of the
structural systems and the concept of a SER with additional qualifications should be part
of the strategy. I agree that if we do not start moving toward this concept, the public will
eventually demand or force this upon the Profession in terms of their choosing.
Engineer D
I can see some very nervous professional liability insurers on the horizon. Where everybody
working on a project is employed by the same real entity the professional liability insurance
issue is likely a non-issue; where one engineer has to be responsible for a whole raft of engineers
employed elsewhere there may be serious reluctance to one entity adopting the risk in the 'all
equal but some are more equal than others' situation that the Engineer of Record is placed.
I'll defer to those with much more experience of the realities of the Engineer of Record than me,
but is it worth asking the Structural sub-committee to investigate that - or have someone in-house
do it, and report back to us how the issue can be addressed. And it'll have to be something that is
workable in the real world.
If the structural sub-committee is already looking at this issue (or something similar) can they
share their thoughts with PSC before we/they go off on a wild goose chase trying to satisfy
council?
Engineer E
In view of mechanical and electrical engineering in building industry, contractors shall provide
as built document. This document will be generally reviewed by the engineer. If PEO consider to
put the responsibility onto the engineer to "guarantee" the accuracy of the submitted as built, it
will have significant impact on the liability and responsibility of the engineer. Should the
engineer be responsible for this work, he should not stamp the record document.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B - (a)
Engineer of Record Survey

Please complete by November 1st
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for building
structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so,
please describe that problem.
Yes there is a problem. Structural building designers (offices) do not design the entire structure.
The design of the structure is, more than often, delegated by one designer to other designer
under SEPARATE contracts with the Owner/Constructor/Subcontractor. In many cases the
Owner/Constructor retains various designers directly for the design of specific building
components. The result is the increased likelihood of designers not working together closely to
ensure that all design criteria work TOGETHER and perform as intended, by say, the primary
designer of the structural framing. Reviews of secondary structural elements that may or should
be sealed are not being reviewed by the primary designer. Complexes, such as pre-engineered
structures with greater lateral displacement are being placed adjacent to more rigid
conventional structures (under a new development) and neither designer are investigating the
effects of lateral deflections upon each other. While the designs themselves are satisfactory, it is
the fragmentation of various designs which increases the likelihood of design gaps.
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings during
construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or well-being? If so, please
describe that problem.
No, in general, my experience is that the combination of reviews done by independent
inspectors, by the designated reviewing engineers, and by delegated engineers appear to
ensure that structures are constructed in general compliance with the contract documents.
However, it is has been noted on two occasions, where the prime structural engineering
consultant has delegated the general commitment review process to each sealing engineer(of
sub elements) and, in turn, has relied on individual reviews to complete the general review
process without stepping on site. If this process increases in frequency then I would believe a
problem will arise. In my opinion, I also do not think it is prudent for any party more than armslength of the prime designer to perform general commitments to review as the level of
responsibility becomes clouded and diluted, moreover, there are nuisances to which only the
primedesigner can pick up.
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the primary structural
system) should take responsibility for all designs in that discipline including designs prepared
by professional engineers working for subcontractors?
Yes
X No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline, he/she would
indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and sealing all drawings including
those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing to do so?
Yes
X No
Do you agree that the designer of the primary structural system must provide all
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components provided by
the subcontractors?
X Yes
No
What information should be included in those specifications? First, designers do not often
follow the prescribed standards for their own design which they impose on other designers or
buildings. For structural steel CAN/CSA S16.1 is the applicable standard. Similarly CAN/CSA has
most of the standards for structural designs antenna supporting structures, masonry, wood,
steel design etc. Ironically, it is my understanding that we cannot find a member guilty for not
following a prescribed standard as we cannot impose these standards on members?????
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.
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.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B (b)
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(c)

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.
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.
Yes
No
Yes
No
the subcontractors?
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.

1
2
3
4
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.
Yes
No
It should be the engineer who designs the primary structural framing system and that
engineer should be a senior engineer with at least 10 years of consulting experience.
Based on our meeting it seems that almost everyone agreed that defining a structural engineer
of record is a best practice for the sake of public safety, clarity for building officials and
accountability of the designers. Some people are afraid of creating more regulation and more
coordination work without any guarantee of fees for that extra work. Some people feel that
since there have not been many complaints or collapses that the status quo is fine. I believe
that as a profession, we have to define best practices and we have to be proactive in updating
the best practices to match a changing design environment. If redefining the best practice of
requiring that a structural engineer be assigned avoids one collapse that saves one life, it is
worthwhile.
However, there seems to be many obstacles to implementing a mandatory structural engineer
of record. At this point, it may be that the Guideline can only define the position and
recommend that owners assign a structural engineer of record if the engineering is done by
several engineers working in two or more offices. If the work is done in a single office, the
supervising engineer will be the engineer of record by default.
Thank you.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(d)

Yes.
The gap between the design and build.
Yes. See Garbutt case.
X
Yes
No
Yes
NO.X It is not necessary.
the subcontractors?
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.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(e)
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(f)

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 peoples
work, he/she has to show that responsibility by checking and sealing drawings prepared by
others. How else is that responsibility manifested and proved?
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.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(g)

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
element is safe for its intended use. I wouldnt 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.
C-476-3.2
Appendix B(h)

Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of providing designs for
building structural systems that results in a threat to the public health, safety or
well-being? If so, please describe that problem.
No
Do you believe there is a problem in the usual practice of reviewing buildings
during construction that results in a threat to the public health, safety or wellbeing? If so, please describe that problem.
No
Do you agree that a single engineer in each discipline (e.g. designer of the
primary structural system) should take responsibility for all designs in that
discipline including designs prepared by professional engineers working for
subcontractors?
Yes
No
If a single engineer is taking responsibility for all the work in a single discipline,
he/she would indicate that he/she is taking responsibility by checking and
sealing all drawings including those prepared by subcontractors. Are you willing
to do so?
Yes
No
subcontractors with detailed specifications needed to design the components
provided by the subcontractors?
Yes
No

Ill defer to the structural sub-committee as their real-world experience will make
that clear.

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
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 Councils direction goes far beyond the structural engineer or
buildings, I dont think the structural sub-committee is the group suited to
developing thoughts on what engineer or record for everything in every
project must mean.
C-476-3.2
Appendix C
Minutes
PSC - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING IN BUILDINGS GUIDELINE SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETING
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
PEO Offices
Members:
Kevin Chessman, P. Eng.
David Garbuio, P. Eng.
Don Ireland, P. Eng.
Suja John, P. Eng.
Neil Kennedy, P. Eng.
John Mark, P. Eng.
Ranka Radonjic-Vuksanovic, P. Eng.
David Tipler, P. Eng.
Staff:
Jos Vera, P. Eng.
Regrets:
Michael Moffatt, P. Eng.
Robert Morrison, P. Eng.
Edward Poon, P. Eng.
Opening of Meeting
1.
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.
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

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)
(2)
Coordinating
Engineer
places
Coordinator
Dispute Resolution
Defining the role of a Coordinating Engineer would be helpful for the

profession.
Engineering has become more fragmented.

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?
Consequently, someone, an
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.
2.
It was noted that the Terms of References do not cover incomplete drawings.
Having a Coordinating Engineer solves the gaps issue, but does not solve all
issues.
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 Engineers 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 Engineers stamp go? Perhaps at the building
permit level.
The Coordinating Engineer could coordinate the work in the same company
or be from another company.
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.
3.
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.
4.
C-476-3.2
Appendix D
COMMITMENT TO GENERAL REVIEW BY ARCHITECTS AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

PART A TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER
Permit Application No.
C-476-3.2
Appendix E
Project Description:
Address of Project:
Municipality:
WHEREAS the Ontario Building Code requires that the project described above be reviewed during construction or demolition by architects,
professional engineers or both that are licensed to practice in Ontario, and
WHEREAS the Building Code Act prohibits the construction or demolition of a building if a permit has not been issued to authorize it, and
WHEREAS architects are prohibited by law from undertaking general reviews if a permit has not been issued,
NOW THEREFORE the Owner, who intends to construct or demolish or have the building constructed or demolished, hereby confirms that:
1. The undersigned architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) have been retained to provide general reviews of the construction or demolition of the
building to determine whether the work is in general conformity with the plans and other documents that form the basis for the issuance of a permit, in
accordance with the performance standards of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) and/or Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO);
2. All general review reports by the architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) will be forwarded promptly to the Chief Building Official;
3. Should any retained architect or professional engineer cease to provide general reviews for any reason during construction or demolition, the Chief
Building Official will be notified in writing immediately, and another architect or professional engineer will be appointed so that general review
continues without interruption;
4. Construction or demolition will only be undertaken if architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) are retained to undertake general review, and a
permit authorizing the proposed construction or demolition has been issued; and
5. The architect(s) and/or professional engineer(s) listed below will be notified of construction or demolition start date and that no work will commence
before the start date given in the notification.
The undersigned hereby certifies that he/she has read and agrees to the above
Owners Name:
Date:
Owners Address:
Telephone:
Signature of Owner:
Print Name:
Fax:
(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:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
Telephone:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
Telephone:
EABO standard form.
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
ELECTRICAL
SITE SERVICES
Print Name:
OTHER:___________________
Date:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
Telephone:
ARCHITECTURAL
Consultant Name:
MECHANICAL
Signature:
MECHANICAL
Signature:
Address:
STRUCTURAL
MECHANICAL
Signature:
Address:
05/2011
C-476-3.3
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.
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
Councilors 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
At its September 2011 meeting, Council approved support for the Take Back
Manufacturing initiative (TBM) of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME). Included
in the motion was the appointment of a PEO Councillor to attend SME meetings, promotions
and trade shows as the PEO representative advocating the regulatory mandate of PEO in the
context of SME's initiative. No Councillor was appointed at that time.
Also, in accordance with PEOs insurance policy requirements, Council is required to approve
volunteer members.
2. Rationale/Recommendation
That Council appoint a member of Council as the PEO representative as stated above.
C-476-3.4
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS INDUSTRIAL SUB-COMMITTEE

Purpose: To consider establishing a sub-committee of the Professional Standards Committee to
address industrial issues.
That Council direct the Professional Standards Committee to establish an Industrial subcommittee 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
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.
1. The Repeal of the Industrial Exception Task Force would be asked to identify issues
that industry may benefit from if there were additional standards and/or guidelines
tailored for industry.
2. The Professional Standards Committee would develop a mandate for its Industrial
sub-committee.
3. Volunteer Management would recruit expert practitioners to serve on the subcommittee.
4. The sub-committee would identify the need for additional standards and/or
guidelines to assist industry.
5. Standards and/or Guidelines would be developed using PSCs protocols and
approved by Council.
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.
C-476-5
CONSENT AGENDA
Purpose: To approve the items contained in the consent agenda
That the consent agenda be approved.
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS, Secretariat Co-ordinator
Routine agenda items that may be approved without debate are included in a consent agenda
and may be moved in a single motion. However, the minutes of the meeting will reflect each
item as if it was dealt with separately. Including routine items on a consent agenda expedites
the meeting.
Items included on the consent agenda may be removed and dealt with separately if they
contain issues or matters that require review.
Please review the minutes ahead of time for errors or omissions and advise Allison Elliot (416840-1114 or aelliot@peo.on.ca) if there are any required revisions prior to the meeting so that
the minutes, when presented, may be considered within the consent agenda.
The following items are contained in the consent agenda:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Minutes 225th Executive Committee Meeting October 2011

Minutes 474th Council Meeting November 2011
Minutes 475th Council Meeting December 2011
Consulting Engineer Designation Applications
Committee Terms of Reference, Work Plans and Human Resources Plans
Changes to Committees/Task Forces Roster
Approval of Examination Awards Recipient
C-476-5.1
MINUTES 225th Executive Committee October 11, 2011

Purpose To ratify the minutes of the 225th Executive Committee meeting
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

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
Appendix A
Minutes
The 225th Meeting of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO was held at PEO offices,
40 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
Present:
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
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 Registrars 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.
225th Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 11, 2011

Page 2 of 6
Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Councillor Gupta:

That Computershare Investor Services Inc. be appointed as
PEOs 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 PEOs
volunteer website, with the qualification for participation on this new
Committee is members with 20 years or more experience in the
consulting business. Members are to be given one month to submit
their resumes.
It was also concluded that President Adams and President-elect Dixon
review the applications and make the final selection.
11-48
MEMBER SUBMISSION BY-LAW
CONFIRMATION REPORT OF
CONSULTATION WITH REGIONAL
CONGRESSES
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 Committees
request at its March 2011 meeting that this matter be referred to the
Regional Councillors Committee for consultation at congresses.

Page 3 of 6
11-49
REGIONAL COUNCILLORS COMMITTEE
SUBMISSION RE: ELECTING THE
PRESIDENT
The Chair stated that the Chair of the Regional Councillors Committee
(RCC) was requesting the Executive Committee to support an RCC
motion regarding election of president by members.
Moved by Past President Freeman, seconded by Vice President Chong:
That the following courses of action with respect to the election of the
president, be presented to Council, at its November 2011 meeting, for
consideration:
a) That members be invited to submit comments in support of, or
against, electing the president from among Councillors;
b) That an unedited composite document of the comments
received be prepared for publication in Engineering
Dimensions, on PEOs website, and presented wherever
possible; and
c) That a binding member referendum be held on this issue;
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Allen advised that Council had
approved, and the government was working on preparing, several
proposed regulation amendments related to other governance matters
and direction was being sought on what affect a referendum might have
on those regulations. It was agreed that it be noted in the briefing note
to the November 2011 Council meeting that only the referendum
questions be presented to members and, should the referendum pass,
the other proposed associated governance regulations intents passed at
the February 2011 Council meeting would not be affected.
A question arose regarding the relevancy of inviting members to submit
comments and the publication of unedited comments received to the
question of holding a referendum. While it was acknowledged that
conflicting views on the issue should be presented, it was concluded it
would be more appropriate to present a balanced argument in
Engineering Dimensions, with a one-page article to be devoted to each
side, rather than publish a composite document. That notwithstanding,
members are to be provided with a forum on which they may exchange
comments.
The Executive Committee agreed, and Council is to be advised, on the
following:
1. The Regional Councillors Committee would be advised that the
Executive Committee supports the concept of holding a binding
member referendum on whether the president should be
elected from among Councillors;
2. One member from each side of the argument is to be invited to
prepare a one-page article for publication in Engineering
Dimensions so that a balance argument is presented to
members;

Page 4 of 6
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 Councils 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.

Page 5 of 6
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.
________________________________________
______________________________________
K.J. Allen, P.Eng., CEO/Registrar

Page 6 of 6
C-476-5.2
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.
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
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
Appendix A
Minutes
The 474th MEETING of the COUNCIL of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO (PEO) was held at PEO Offices, 40
Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 11, 2011.
Present:

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.
Guests
H. Brown, Brown and Cohen, Communications & Public Affairs Inc.

G. Wowchuk, P.Eng., Executive Analyst
Staff:

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.
474th Meeting of Council November 11, 2011
Page 2 of 15
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 PEOOSPE referendum and relationship and with PEOs 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 PEOs 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 managements
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

Page 3 of 15
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.
For
D. Adams
C. Carlos
T. Chong
D. Dixon
R. Fraser
S. Gupta
M. Hogan
R. Jones
L. King
J. Lee
P. Quinn
Against
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Freeman
B. Kossta
Mary Long-Irwin
S. Reid
C. Roney
R. Shreewastav
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
DEFEATED
Recorded vote:
Abstain
R. Huang
C. Moore
T. Sharma
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.

Page 4 of 15
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 PEOs 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.

Page 5 of 15
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;

Page 6 of 15
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
Mothers 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.

Page 7 of 15
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

Page 8 of 15
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
to members;
Past President Freeman and Councillor Roney be requested to
prepare the in favour of change side of the issue and
President-elect Dixon and Councillor Fraser to prepare the
contrary side;
the assigned Councillors achieve consensus on the referendum
question for Councils consideration at its December 14, 2011
meeting;
should the assigned Councillors be unable to achieve consensus
regarding the question, each side would present its proposed
question and Council will select one of the questions without
modification;
Members be provided with a forum on which to post their
comments and which would be available to all members; and
the list of proposed associated regulations, already approved
by Council, would continue to be moved through the
government should the referendum results be favourable.
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:
Page 9 of 15
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 Presidentelect 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;

Page 10 of 15
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Considered a request from a tenant;

Approved a recipient for a 2012 Presidents Award;
Approved recipients for the 2012 Order of Honour awards;
Approved a recipient for the 2012 Sterling award;
Received Discipline decisions and reasons; and
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 Committees
decision. She reminded the Executive Committee and Council, on
behalf of the EDU, to remember that PEOs 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.

Page 11 of 15
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 PEOs 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;

Page 12 of 15
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 PEOs 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.

Page 13 of 15
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 Borders 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
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 prearranged 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.

Page 14 of 15
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.

These minutes consist of 15 pages and minutes 11035 to 11053.
________________________________________
_______________________________________

Page 15 of 15
C-476-5.3
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.
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
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
Appendix A
Minutes
The 475th MEETING of the COUNCIL of PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO (PEO) was held via
teleconference on Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Present:
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:

S.W. Clark, LL.B., Chief Administrative Officer
A.M. Elliot
L. Latham, P.Eng.
M. Price, P.Eng.
C. Mucklestone
475th Meeting of Council December 15, 2011

Page 1 of 9
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.

That:
a) the agenda, as presented to the meeting at C-4751.0, 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-4752.1, 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

Page 2 of 9
For
P. Ballantyne
D. Dixon
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
B. Kossta
J. Lee
C. Moore
C. Roney
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Against
D. Adams
I. Bhatia
S. Gupta
R. Jones
L. King
P. Quinn
T. Sharma
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
Page 3 of 9
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Council then voted on the main motion:
That:
c) the 2011 Reserve Policy, with reserves set at $3.5
million, be extended to December 31, 2012; and
d) the Policy be monitored throughout the year, with
adjustments being made, if required.
CARRIED
For
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
R. Fraser
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
L. King
B. Kossta
J. Lee
C. Moore
P. Quinn
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
11056
2012 OPERATING BUDGET
Against
D. Adams
S. Gupta
R. Jones
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.

Page 4 of 9
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
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
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
Against
D. Adams
Abstain
S. Gupta
R. Jones
M. Wesa
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
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
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
Against
D. Adams
R. Fraser
S. Gupta

Page 5 of 9
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
B. Kossta
C. Moore
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
11057
2012 CAPITAL BUDGET
R. Jones
L. King
P. Quinn
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

Page 6 of 9
For
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
R. Fraser
D. Freeman
R. Hilton
W. Kershaw
L. King
B. Kossta
C. Moore
C. Roney
T. Sharma
R. Shreewastav
M. Stauch
C. Taylor
M. Wesa
R. Willson
Against
D. Adams
S. Gupta
R. Jones
P. Quinn
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
P. Ballantyne
I. Bhatia
D. Dixon
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
11058
2012 BORROWING RESOLUTION
Against
Abstain
D. Adams
R. Fraser
S. Gupta
R. Jones
P. Quinn
The Chair stated that PEOs borrowing authority expires on

January 31, 2012 and Council was being asked to renew the
authority for the coming year.

Page 7 of 9
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 PEOs Internal Control Banking
Policy, hereby confirms that this Borrowing Resolution is
to expire on January 31, 2013.
CARRIED
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.
CARRIED
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

Page 8 of 9
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.
CARRIED
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.

These minutes consist of six pages and minutes 11054 to 11061.
_______________________________________
______________________________________

Page 9 of 9
C-476-5.4
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 C476-5.4 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.
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 PEOs decision with respect to their application.

That Council approve/deny the applications for designation and redesignation

The applicants will be advised of Councils decision with respect to their applications.
4. Appendices
Appendix A Report of the Consulting Engineer Designation Committee
Appendix B Legal Implications
476
th
Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012
C-476-5.4
Appendix A
To the 476 th Meeting of the Council of

Professional Engineers Ontario
REPORT OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER DESIGNATION COMMITTEE

Chair: Peter Golem, P.Eng.
1. The Committee has reviewed the following applications for DESIGNATION and recommends to
Council that these 7 applicants be exempted from examinations pursuant to Section 56(2) of O.Reg.941
and that they be considered for DESIGNATION AS CONSULTING ENGINEER, having met the
requirements pursuant to Section 56(1) of O.Reg.941:
#
1.1
P.Eng.
Brisson, Andre Louis
Company Name
Jade Engineers Inc.
1.2
Chipps, Steven
1.3
1.6
Froese, Amanda
Jayne
Graham, Levi
Kenneth
Schuknecht, Brent
Edward
Tape, William Donald
AMEC Earth &

Environmental
Meritech Engineering
1.7
Wells, Andrew Peter
1.4
1.5
MIG Engineering Ltd.

Johnson Sustronk
Weinstein + Associates
Haddad Morgan &
Associates Ltd.
KJA Consultants Inc.
476 t h Meeting of Council March1-2, 2012
Address
19 Baldwin St.
Tillsonburg, ON N4G 2K3
3215 North Service Road
Burlington, ON L7N 3G2
202-1315 Bishop St. N.
Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2
453 Christina St. N.
Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3
20 Mural Street
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1K3
24 Shepherd St. E.
Windsor, ON N8X 2J8
901-85 Richmond St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 2C9
Licence #
100024703
90556481
100044355
100009184
90295445
100026210
90439860
Page 2 of 5
2. The Committee has reviewed the following applications for REDESIGNATION and recommends to
Council that these 25 applicants be granted REDESIGNATION AS CONSULTING ENGINEER, having met
the requirements pursuant to Section 57(2) of O.Reg.941:
#
2.1
2.2
P.Eng.
Coulter, John
Emerson
Craig, Dale Conrad
2.3
Dedhar, Saleem
2.4
Dietrich, John
Benedict
Haddad, Yunis Elra
2.5
Company Name
JE Coulter Associates
Ltd.
J.L. Richards &
Associates Limited
S2S Environmental Inc.
Peto MacCallum Ltd.
Haddad Morgan and
Associates Ltd.
Hamann Engineering
Structural Consultants
Ltd.
LH Consultants Ltd.
2.6
Hamann, Stephen
David
2.7
Hudec, Ludovit
2.8
CH2M Hill
2.9
Huggins, Norman
Douglas
Iannuzziello, Angela
2.10
Irving, Gary Grant
Muskoka Engineering
2.11
Johnston, James
Genivar Inc.
2.12
Lorenzen, James
Daniel
Marcu, Mihail Ion
Lorenzen Engineering
Corporation
Self-Employed
Dillon Consulting
Limited
G.W. Mcdowell
Engineering Ltd.
Infratec Engineering
Group Ltd.
Peto MacCallum Ltd.
2.18
McCluskey, George
Canney
McDowell, George
Wilson
Mitchell, Bruce
MacLeod
Nathoo, Alnor
Abdulaziz
Palumbo, Peter
2.19
Sorensen, Peter
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
Genivar Inc.
Vista Engineering
Corporation
EMS-Tech Inc.
Address
211-1210 Sheppard Ave. E.
Toronto, ON M2K 1E3
864 Lady Ellen Place
Ottawa, ON K1Z 5M2
260-1099 Kingston Rd.
Pickering,ON L1V 1B5
16 Franklin Street South
Kitchener, ON N2C 1R4
24 Shepherd St. E.
Windsor, ON N8X 2J8
10-151 Bentley Street
Markham, ON L3R 3X9
Licence #
9503012
901-55 Delisle Ave.

Toronto, ON M4V 3C2
255 Consumers Rd.
Toronto, ON M2J 5B6
210-2800 14 th Avenue
Markham, ON L3R 0E4
4372 Highway 169 RR3
Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0
100-15 Fitzgerald Road
Nepean, ON K2H 9G1
234-229 St. Clair Street
Chatham, ON N7L 3J4
845 Mewburn Rd.
Ancaster, ON L9G 3E4
1400-130 Dufferin Avenue
London, ON N6A 5R2
3555 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, ON N9E 3M3
2 David Gohn Circle
Markham, ON L6E 1A7
165 Cartwright Avenue
Toronto, ON M6A 1V5
1968 Guild Road
Pickering, ON L1V 1Y1
699 Dundas Street West
Belleville, ON K8N 4Z2
20739504
9701012
11057502
11588019
17730011
18023010
20796017
21189113
21386016
22330013
27397504
29038403
30034508
30301501
90227315
33608019
35273010
43678010
Page 3 of 5
2.20
Sutton, Peter
Laughlin Alan
Tassone, Nicola
Terrapex Environmental
Ltd.
Building Sciences Inc.
Sendex Environmental
Corp.
The Sernas Group
2.24
Trudell, Marc
Bernard
Webster, Reginald
David
Wood, Victor
2.25
Zourntos, Peter S.
2.21
2.22
2.23
3.
V.A. Wood Associates

Limited
Valdor Engineering Inc.
90444639
90262601
47048509
49280019
51000016
90214156
The Consulting Engineers Designation Committee (CEDC) has considered the

following applications for Designation as a Consulting Engineer and
recommends that they be DECLINED.
#
3.1
P.Eng.
Joseph, Jr. Winston
Company Name
Joseph, Winston Jr.
3.2
Markell, Cristopher
Alexander
Milliken, Bruce
Edward
Robert J. Bourgon &

Associates Ltd.
Selectrical Contractors
Ltd.
3.3
49 Coldwater Aod
Toronto, ON M3B 1Y8
1-221 Rayette Road
Concord, ON L4K2G1
417 Exeter Road
London, ON N6E 2Z3
41-110 Scotia Court
Whitby, ON L1N 8Y7
24-1080 Tapscott Rd.
Scarborough, ON M1X 1E7
2-741 Rowntree Dairy Rd.
Woodbridge, ON L4L 5T9
Address
902-1210 York Mills Road
North York, ON M3A 1Y3
600 Glengarry Boulevard
Cornwall, ON K6H 6P8
224 North Murray St.
Trenton, ON K8V 6R8
Licence #
100076442
100026118
31849110
The CEDC recommends to the Council of the Association that the 3 applications
for designation be DECLINED because they do not currently comply with the
Regulation 941, made under the Professional Engineers Act, Section 60(b) with
respect to being PRIMARILY ENGAGED.
4. 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:
#
4.1
4.2
Company Name
Infratec Engineering Group
Ltd.
MIG Engineering (2011) Ltd.
Address
2 David Gohn Circle
Markham, ON L6E 1A7
453 Christina Street N.
Sarnia, ON N7T 5W3
Designated Consulting
Engineer(s)
Bruce Mitchell, P.Eng.
Mark Kennedy, P.Eng.
Page 4 of 5
CONSULTING ENGINEER DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS
C-476- 5.4
Appendix B
Legal Implications/Authority
1. Pursuant to Section 56(2),Council has the authority to exempt an applicant from any of
the examinations required by section 56(1) to be taken by an applicant for a Consulting
Engineer Designation if Council is satisfied that the applicant has appropriate
qualifications.
Pursuant to Section 56(1) Council shall designate as a Consulting Engineer
every applicant for the Designation who meet the requirements set out in Section
56(1)(a-d). As a result there does not appear to be any discretion for Council to
refuse applicants who meet the requirements.
2. Pursuant to Section 57(2) Council shall redesignate as a consulting engineer every
applicant who meets the requirements of section 57(2) (a-c). As a result there does not
appear to be any discretion for Council to refuse applicants who meet the
requirements.
Page 5 of 5
C-476-5.5
COMMITTEE WORK PLANS, HUMAN RESOURCES PLANS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose: To approve committee terms of reference, work plans and human resources plans
That the committee work plans, human resources plans and Terms of Reference as presented at C476-5.5, Appendices A and B, be approved.
Prepared by: Fern Gonalves, CHRP, Director People Development
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

That Council approve the submitted work plans, human resources plans and terms of reference for the
indicated committees.
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
476tth Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

C-476-5.5
Appendix A(i)
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 associations 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 Professionals contribution to the
society and the role of the association.
Terms of
Reference
[Key duties]:
1. Assess all eligible nominations for the associations Order of Honour, Ontario
Professional Engineers Awards, Sterling Award and External Awards programs and
make recommendations for potential awardees to PEO Council for approval.
2. Monitor the awards program strategies.
3. Review the documentation, criteria and processes for each OPEA award category
and make appropriate recommendations for improvement.
4. Encourage the nomination and celebration of deserving colleagues for recognition
through Professional Engineers Awards Programs (OOH, OPEA and Sterling) and
External Honours.
5. Monitor and review past award recipients and other award programs to identify
persons deserving further recognition through upgrades or other honours.
6. Review and consider/recommend to Council new awards where appropriate.
Tasks,
Outcomes
and Success
Measures:
Task/Activities:
1.1 Assess all eligible nominations for the

associations Order of Honour (OOH)
1.2 Assess nominations for the Sterling
Award
Ontario Professional Engineers
Awards (OPEA)
various External Honours Programs
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
3.1 Contribute and provide input into the
development of PEO website as it
pertains to the Awards Program
Outcomes and
Success Measures
Due date:
List of recommended
nominees for the OOH,
Sterling and OPEA
Award submitted to
Council (and in the
case of OPEA, OSPE
board) for approval
1.1 Nov 2012
A balanced and high

calibre pool of
nominees for all
Awards Programs
Ongoing
1.2 Nov 2012

1.3 Apr 2012
2.3 June 2012

/ Ongoing
PEO website that

promotes the Awards
Program and is user
Ongoing
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
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:
Committee
Advisor:
Paul Ballantyne, P.Eng., member since 2010
Intercommittee
collaboration:
Stakeholders:
Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) with respect to recognition programs

Regional Councillors Committee (RCC) Volunteer and employer recognition
Fern Goncalves, Director, People Development

Olivera Tosic, Recognition Coordinator
OSPE Staff and OSPE Board of Directors

Engineers Canada
Provincial and Federal Government
Human Resource (HR) Plan Awards Committee (AWC)

C-476-5.5
Appendix A(ii)
Committee: Awards Committee
Date Developed: January 2012
Committee Review Date:
Date Council Approved:
Categories
Core Competencies
Skills/Abilities
Expertise/Knowledge
Committee
Membership
Broad Engagement
Career Stage
Disciplines & Sectors
Gender / Diversity
Geographic
Representation
Target / Ideal
(To meet the needs of
the Committee)
Key objectives and
core competencies are
listed in Appendix A
12 members
At least 1 Councillor, 2
OSPE appointees,1
OOH Companion and
at least 3 from the
OOH list and from the
OPEA
At least 1 from every
career stage ( i.e.
early, mid and late)
At a minimum: 1 from
government, 1from
academia, 6 from a
wide variety of
disciplines and sectors
At least 1/3 female

members
Full geographic
representation
Currently in Place
See Appendix A
11 members ( 2 OSPE
& 1 Councillor)
4 OPEA and 6 OOH ( 2
Companions)
11 senior in career
Majority in Class F
Academia, aerospace,
automotive, federal /
provincial , municipal,
private (energy/power,
management
consulting, legal,
Biochemical, biotech,
nanotech chemical,
civil, forensic,
electrical, mechanical,
metallurgical,
environmental
3 female and 8 male
members
Geographic
representation across
all regions
8 CEAB and 3 IEB
CEAB / International
Engineering Graduates
Even split between

CEAB & International
Engineering Graduates
Licensed vs
Non-licensed
Volunteer
Development Plans
List potential
All P.Engs.
All P.Engs.
Advancement to Vice
Vice chair appointed by
January 2012
Chair / Chair / Past

Chair
AWC with expectation

he / she will become
Gap
[ST = Short-term Goal
LT = Long-term Goal]
No gaps
1 member
LT 1 mid or 1 early
(< 10 yrs)
No gap
Female, with full

complement
No gap
Possibly 1 EIT

development
opportunities
[See Appendix B]
Lateral move to other
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
Terms of Office:
Chair/Vice Chair
Committee members
January 2012
committee/task force
Election to Council
Appointment to
external agencies
with 0 to 5 years on
committee
At least 2 members
with 5 to 10 years
New Chair Jan 2011

0 to 5 years = 5
5 to 10 years =3
Over 10 years = 3
Maximum three (3) years

At least every two (2) years a new member joins the committee
APPENDIX A
A. Key objectives and core competencies (per the Work Plan)
List top 35 Committee Work Plan
Outcomes:
List core competencies for each Work Plan outcome:
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
- Possess a good knowledge of PEO award criteria and

selection 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
- Facilitation, review and evaluation of nomination

submissions for OPEA, OOH and Sterling awards programs;
independently and then through participation in a structure
committee process
- 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
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
- Ability to contribute to promotion of Awards Programs,

website development and electronic submissions
B. Action plan for volunteer recruitment

List top 2 3
preferred core
competencies
(knowledge, skills,
abilities)
January 2012
List specific
attributes for
each core
competency
Briefly state how you

will meet your needs
[ie: development plans for
current member(s); request
additional volunteer
resources]
Resources
Needed
Target Date
for
completion

Ability to evaluate and
monitor Awards
Program
Communication
Program
Ability to work with
technology such as
SharePoint and video
conferencing
Facilitated strategic
session
PEO training sessions
June 2012
strategic
session
PEO IT staff
January
2012 AWC
meeting;
June 2012
strategic
session
C. Comments
January 2012
Briefing Note Direction
C-476-5.5
Appendix B(i)
JOINT RELATIONS COMMITTEE REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE

Purpose: To approve revised terms of reference for the Joint Relations Committee
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.
Prepared by: Kim Allen, P.Eng.
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.
The amended Terms of Reference will be adopted once approved by both PEO and OSPE.
Process Followed
Council Identified Review
Actual Motion Review

N/A
Members of the Negotiating Team and the JRC
5. Appendices
Appendix A Proposed Revisions to the OSPE - PEO Joint Relations Committee Terms of
Reference
OSPE - PEO
C-476-5.5
Appendix B(ii)
Terms of Reference
1) Purpose
The purpose of the Committee is to:
a) Build relationships between the leaders of the two organizations to strengthen
regulation, service and advocacy for the profession within their respective mandates;
b) Facilitate the exchange of information between the two organizations;
c) Identify issues and facilitate cooperation between the two organizations in areas of
mutual interest / concern; and
d) Provide a forum for the discussion and informal resolution of potential areas of
opportunity or conflict between the two organizations.
2) Guiding Principles
(i) We will support each other in the interest of advancing the engineering profession.
(ii) We will work to find synergies and not compete with one another.
3) Composition
3.1 The Committee will consist of the following members:
a) The President /Chair plus two (2) other Directors three (3) senior volunteers of the
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;
b) The Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers;
c) The President and two (2) other Councillors three (3) senior volunteers of
Professional Engineers Ontario; and
d) The Chief Executive Officer of Professional Engineers Ontario.
The above representatives will be appointed to the Committee by their respective organizations
from time to time according to their respective organizations policies for such appointments. It
is intended that appointees will be chosen on the basis of their knowledge of the issues facing the
profession and of their respective organizations positions with respect to same, as well their
commitment to maintaining an effective working relationship between the two organizations.
January 2008 March 2012
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.
January 2008 March 2012
C-476-5.6
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.
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 Gonalves, CHRP, Director People Development
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 PEOs
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.
If approved, the newly-appointed and re-appointed members as well as those not reappointed will be notified accordingly.
Process
Committees and Task Forces Policy
Followed
Role of Council: #1 Appoint all committees/task forces.
Council Identified
N/a
Review
Actual Motion
N/a
Review
4. Appendices
Appendix A Changes to the 2012 Committees and Task Forces Membership
Roster.
476
th
Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012
C-476-5.6
Appendix A
Changes to Sections 2 (Other Committees Reporting to Council)
and 4 (Task Forces) of the 2012 Committees and Task Forces Roster
476 th Council Meeting
Committee and Task Force Appointments:
New members
Greg Allen, P.Eng.
Philip John Smith
Service
2012
2012
Committee
Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC)
Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force (RIETF)
The proposed Equity and Diversity Committee (EDC) volunteer was identified and assessed
by the Committee Chair and Committee Advisor. He has completed a formal application
process and is being recommended to serve as noted.
The proposed Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force (RIETF) volunteer has completed
a formal application process and, in consultation with the Committee Advisor, was evaluated
by the Director, People Development, and is being recommended to serve as noted.
Changes in the Committee and Task Force Roster (volunteers):

Changes
Michael Chan, P.Eng.
Christopher Kan, P.Eng.
Service
Committee
2011
Advisory Committee on Volunteers (ACV) Chair (reelected)
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
Salvatore Guerriero, P.Eng.
Lucia Servejova
Service
Committee
2012
Fees Mediation Committee (FMC) - Committee Advisor
2012
Fees Mediation Committee (FMC) Staff Support
Corrections to the Committee and Task Force Roster:

Changes
Aziz Ahmed, P.Eng.
Andrew Bowers, P.Eng.
Yogaranee Mahalihgam,
P.Eng.
Magdy Milad Attia, P.Eng.
Service
Committee
2008
Professional Standards Committee (PSC) Guideline
for Waterwork Engineers Report Preparation
2008
2008
2009
Experience Requirements Committee (ERC)
Spiridon Bot, P.Eng.
2006
Michael Chapman, P.Eng.
2006
Barry Hitchcock, P.Eng.
1997
Maged Naguib, P.Eng.
2009
Leonel Rojas, P.Eng.
2009
Jian-Guo Wang, P.Eng.
2010
Committee and Task Force Resignations:

Resigned members
Gino Colonico, P.Eng.
Service
2010-2012
Committee
Education Committee (EDU)
Wasib Muhammad, P.Eng.
2010-2012
Education Committee (EDU)
Nigel Birch, P.Eng.
2005-2012
Edmund Lee, P.Eng.
2006-2011
Hong Jie Liu, P.Eng.
2005-2011
Edward Poon, P.Eng.
2010-2011
Removal of Industrial Exception Task Force

(RIETF)
External Appointments:
Members
Robert Dunn, P.Eng.
Service
Committee
2012
Canadian Engineering Qualification Board (CEQB) (reappointed)
C-476-5.7
APPROVAL OF EXAMINATION PROGRAM AWARDEES

Purpose: To approve annual awards for members who have obtained professional engineering licensure
in 2011 through the examination program.
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
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 years 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.
That Council approve the recommended winner of the V. G. Smith Award.
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.
Process
Followed
N/A
Council
Identified
Review
N/A
Actual
Motion
Review
N/A
5. Appendices
Appendix A Current Policy
Page 2 of 3
C-476-5.7
Appendix A
SMITH AND WOLFE AWARDS
Current Policy
PEO Council policy provides for professional engineering licensure via PEOs Technical
Examinations Program. Each year, the Licensing and Finance Department, in concert with the
Academic Requirements Committee, makes recommendations to Council in respect of the V. G.
Smith and S. E. Wolfe Awards. These awards were established in honour of Professors Smith
and Wolfe, who were licensed professional engineers and former members of the associations
Board of Examiners (now called the Academic Requirements Committee).
The V. G. Smith Award is given to an individual who attained PEO membership during the year,
following the completion of the associations technical examination program, in which he or
she gained the highest mark in any three examination papers, excluding the Complementary
Studies and Professional Practice Examinations.
In the case of The S. E. Wolfe Award , it is also given to an individual who attained PEO
membership during the year. He or she, having completed at least one technical examination,
has submitted an engineering report judged to be the best of all the reports received during
the year with a minimum grade of 80 per cent.
The sum of $1,000 is awarded to each of the winners and they are invited to attend the Annual
General Meeting Luncheon at which their awards are presented.
Page 3 of 3
C-476-6.1
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-inCouncil until the date set opposite their respective names:
Ishwar Bhatia, P.Eng. to December 18, 2014
Chris Roney, P.Eng. to December 6, 2013
Rakesh Shreewastav, P.Eng. to December 6, 2013
Martha Stauch to December 18, 2014
Copies of their appointments are attached as Appendix A.
C-476-6.1
Appendix A
C-476-6.2
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.
Briefing Note - Information
C-476-6.3
ENGINEERS CANADA GLOBALIZATION WORKSHOP

Purpose: To provide information as a result of Engineers Canadas workshop.
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
Appendix A
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
fvangool@intersol.ca
Tel: 613.230.6424
Fax: 613.567.1504
www.intersol.ca
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice workshop was held on May 5, 2011 in Ottawa,
Ontario. The objective of the workshop was to examine and identify the potential impacts of globalization
on regulating the profession in Canada with respect to international changes in engineering education,
practice and regulation. This report briefly summarizes each presentation and provides an overview of the
table group and plenary discussions and recommendations of participants.
Theme 1: Understanding the Context of the Globalization of Engineering
Three presentations were given to build understanding of the issues, challenges and benefits of the
globalization of engineering. Dick Fletcher, Chair, International Committee, Engineers Canada, gave a
presentation on how Engineers Canada assists in the development of mobility agreements for engineers
and its level of involvement in the international engineering community. Then, John Power, Director
General, Engineers Ireland, provided an overview of Engineers Ireland, the European Union, regulation of
engineers in Europe, education requirements and engineers mobility in Europe. And last, Jerry Carter,
Executive Director, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) described the
NCEES, current issues around licensure and its mobility in the U.S. and key global challenges being faced
by NCEES.
Theme 2: Federal Government Initiatives on International Mobility
Under the federal government theme, Michelle Cooper, Director, Services Trade Policy Division, Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Canada gave a presentation on Canadas trade agenda and the key
principles of its trade negotiations approach. Then, Gerrie Doyle, Canadian Architectural Licensing
Authorities (CALA) International Relations Committee Chair outlined some of the international agreements
in which CALA is involved (e.g., the Canada/US Inter-recognition Agreement ).
Following the presentation, participants worked in table groups to answer three discussion questions. First,
participants identified several trade issues that should be a high priority for resolution such as the
procurement process and quality-based selection (QBS); support and promotion of international trade
agreements and related discussions; the issue of reciprocity; and how to maintain high quality standards in
licensing without creating trade barriers.
Secondly, participants suggested some ways to involve the engineering profession in trade negotiations
and the establishment of trade positions such as developing networks to maintain relationships and
promote knowledge sharing; supporting Engineers Canada as the national voice for the profession;
involving youth in promoting the engineering profession; and creating a long-term strategy for involving the
profession in trade negotiations on a regular basis.
Finally, participants noted that regulated professions could work together by creating a common voice and
initiating regular dialogue among professions, students and policy bodies, and by developing a
collaboration framework to guide ongoing discussions.
Theme 3: Education
John Hepburn, Vice-President, Research and International, University of British Columbia briefly
summarized international engagement activities at UBC and noted some of the ways that globalization of
the engineering profession is enhanced through education. Following this presentation, David Strong,
Professor and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Chair in Design
Engineering, Queens University identified current variants in engineering education, and provided
Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on Regulation in Canada
examples of non-traditional programs, offered some global perspectives and challenged participants to
consider some challenging questions with respect to the future of engineering education.
Table discussions on the topic of engineering education were held following the presentations. Participants
identified a range of concerns about alternative learning approaches for engineering students such as the
need to ensure that high quality learning outcomes are met through alternative learning approaches.
Specifically, many were concerned about maintaining learning approaches that foster and test students
abilities in areas such as technical fundamentals, problem-solving skills, ethics and social responsibility,
team work, professional skills and creativity.
In terms of ways that the Canadian engineering profession and learning institutions can most effectively
work with their international counterparts, participants encouraged a holistic approach to connecting with
international learning institutions. In addition, they supported the use of approaches such as exchange
programs, satellite campuses, internships, distance education and multi-national degrees.
When asked about the degree to which we should work to harmonize our education standards with other
countries, several groups urged caution. They did not want Canada to blindly support harmonization to the
detriment of its high educational and professional standards. In addition, the cost and complexity of
pursuing harmonization could be high. Despite their reservations about harmonization, all participants
acknowledged the need to learn about and from the experiences and systems of other countries with the
aim of continuous improvement in Canada.
Theme 4: Practice Issues
John Boyd provided a brief overview of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers and the
engineering industry. He also outlined some hurdles that are faced in international engineering, discussed
the concept of reciprocity and highlighted some implications for Canadian practice. Andrew Steeves, EXP,
focused his presentation on globalization and the procurement of engineering services. Specifically, he
argued for the widespread use of a quality-based procurement approach.
Following these presentations, participants identified some key issues regarding the international practice
of engineering such as the need to address differences in ethics between Canada and other countries,
how to attract and retain professionals and how to promote the benefits of quality-based selection. In
response to the second discussion question, participants suggested undertaking actions or activities to
help resolve the identified key issues regarding international practice. They emphasized the need for the
Canadian engineering profession to speak with one voice to promote the value of engineering and to help
small- and medium-sized businesses access good and complex work projects. Collaboration among
companies to promote QBS could result in greater understanding and uptake of QBS by clients. They also
emphasized the need to participate in open dialogue within the profession and with clients and to raise the
overall profile of the engineering profession to government and decision-makers.
Workshop Wrap-Up
Paul Amyotte closed the workshop on behalf of Dick Fletcher. Key lessons from the workshop include the
need to speak with a single, national voice. Engineers Canada could lead this effort but other key members
of the engineering community need to be engaged. Overall, there is great value in collaborating with other
professions (e.g., architects) and strong, effective relationships enhanced by ongoing dialogue are
essential to addressing current and future issues.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
Canadas 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
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABET
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
ACE
Architects 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
iv
INTRODUCTION
The Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice workshop was held on May 5, 2011 in Ottawa, Ontario.
The objective of the workshop was to examine and identify the potential impacts of globalization on regulating the
profession in Canada with respect to international changes in engineering education, practice and regulation. The
workshop was approved and budgeted by the Board of Engineers Canada.
The session was attended by 61 participants; a list of participants is included in Appendix A. Participants took
part in a series of table and plenary discussions addressing four themes: a) understanding the context of the
globalization of engineering; b) federal government initiatives to address international mobility; c) education; and
d) practice issues. Each theme was framed by a panel of expert presenters who provided an overview of the
theme and identified some of the challenges being faced by the engineering profession. Following each panel of
presentations, table group discussions were held. They were guided by a number of discussion questions aimed
at identifying the globalization issues being faced by engineers including how the regulation of engineering may
be affected by globalization, ways to improve the international presence of Canadian engineers and ways that the
Canadian engineering profession can change or improve to more effectively work at an international level.
All workshop feedback will be provided to Engineer Canadas International Committee for consideration. After
completing their analysis of the materials, the Committee will report its findings or recommendations to the Board
of Engineers Canada.
This report briefly summarizes each presentation and provides an overview of the table group and plenary
discussions and recommendations of participants.
WELCOME
Zaki Ghavitian, President, Engineers Canada welcomed participants to the workshop and encouraged delegates
to participate fully in the days discussions.
He noted that education requirements for engineers are changing rapidly and there is an increasing need to work
internationally. Further, relevant work experience and continued professional development, including on an
international stage, are becoming highly valued proficiencies for licensed engineers. These principles have been
strongly embraced by many countries and will soon become a global necessity. Mr. Ghavitian also pointed out
some of the pressures on licensing of the Canadian engineering practice such as internal and inter-governmental
trade. He emphasized the need to continually analyze available data in order to maintain a clear picture of
engineering in Canada and what is needed to regulate it in the future.
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 Irelands 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
engineers stature and credibility (including information about education, etc.). Participation will be voluntary.
He also noted the importance of MRAs in enhancing mobility.
In conclusion, Mr. Power noted that engineers make a significant difference to quality of life; there is a role for
Engineers Canada in enhancing this. And, whether they are in Canada or Ireland, engineers are operating in a
global environment with a variety of different regulatory systems. Mr. Power felt that changes in European
legislation have reduced some barriers that are faced by engineers. Nonetheless, he emphasized the importance
of effective relationships in making globalization work. And, like Canada, Ireland continues to focus on ensuring
high quality standards are used as the basis for these relationships.
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 masters 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 individuals credentials and provides an advisory statement to a
state board for its consideration. The statement includes a detailed description of the individuals credentials, a
list of noted deficiencies and an opinion as to whether an individual is qualified for entry into the profession.
A participant noted that masters degrees in Canada are different than those in the U.S. (e.g., in Canada,
masters students focus on research rather than course work); thus, further thought should be given as to
whether it makes sense to raise education requirements for Canadian professional engineer status as was done
by the NCEES in the U.S.
The challenges of evaluating the credentials and experience of foreign trained engineers were also noted. Mr.
Carter noted that the NCEES is grappling with this issue as well.
THEME 2: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES ON INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY

CANADAS TRADE AGENDA
Presenter: Michelle Cooper, Director, Services Trade Policy Division

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Michelle Cooper provided an overview of Canadas 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 Organizations Doha negotiations (in which Ms. Cooper noted the
involvement of the engineering profession).
Several key principles guide Canadas 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 projectby-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 Canadas 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 CALAs International Relations Committee (IRC) portfolios. These
agreements were presented in order of priority to CALA:
-
Canada / US Inter-recognition Agreement This agreement addresses the issue of credential recognition
and is currently based on education, experience and examination. CALA is pursuing a relationship that is
based more on the mutual recognition and trust of U.S. and Canadian licenses in order to facilitate better
mobility of architects (e.g., similar to the reciprocity agreement that exists between jurisdictions in Canada
whereby architects licensed in one province are accepted at face value across the country). In addition, to
further improve mobility in Canada, CALA is working on a national continuing education program so that
architects are required to meet continuing education licensing requirements in one province only.
Tri-National Agreement This agreement is in its second year of negotiations between Canada, Mexico and
the U.S.
Architects Council of Europe (ACE) Accord - This accord was signed in 2005. Barriers and challenges
regarding differences in regulatory restrictions on architects make it difficult to develop MRAs.
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation - CALA will assume the secretariat in 2014.
Canberra Accord This accord facilitates the portability of educational credentials between the signatory
countries.
Union Internationale des Architects (UIA) The UIA is an international union of architects. CALA has
presented the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (UIAs member on behalf of Canada) with a draft
memorandum of understanding to guide further interaction on this file.
Quebec / France Bi-lateral Agreement This is a new agreement between the government of France and the
Quebec provincial government.
Ms. Doyle noted that Canadas changing demographics are a key motive for creating and maintaining
international agreements that support the international mobility of professions such as architects and engineers.
In addition, CALA has noted that a significant portion of young people educated as architects are not entering the
profession upon completion of their schooling. This may be due in part to unwillingness by clients to pay
professional fees. Ms. Doyle suggested that it is important to have reasonable professional fees with national
guidelines (for both architects and engineers).
In her presentation, Ms. Doyle mentioned that provincial/territorial guidance would be useful to help advance the
ACE Accord. In response to a question, she clarified that a draft agreement has been developed and distributed
to provinces and territories and that assistance in moving it forward to agreement is desired.
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 professions 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 professions 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-theground in another country).
Ensure that high quality standards are maintained and met; (e.g., do not lower Canadian licensing
standards to lowest common denominator international standard). Be innovative to ensure that
standards are met without causing trade barriers. One table suggested the use of a flexible framework
emphasizing high standards of education, experience and specific knowledge of the market.
Ensure robust accountability for international engineers offering services in other countries
Internally, focus on creating value for export (this includes services and goods)
Continue to build bilateral relationships between professions while larger framework discussions are
taking place, especially in complex jurisdictions
Address the concern that provincial agreements with groups outside Canada can create a back door
access to practice in Canada.
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 Canadas important role in providing a national voice to the profession. Engineers
Canada should have a constant presence in discussions as it can provide a permanent and consistent
voice for the profession (e.g., knowledge is easily lost as employees change jobs). One table encouraged
the appointment of an Engineers Canada representative to assist with ongoing education and
communication related to the profession.
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. UBCs approach to international education is embedded in its overall approach by encouraging student
mobility, providing opportunities for international service learning (e.g., Engineers Without Borders; opportunities
to create solutions for engineering challenges in other countries), and building entrepreneurial skills (e.g., by
including graduate students in industry research projects).
Dr. Hepburn suggested a number of ways to expand international engagement including 2+2 programs,
international internships, and conducting graduate research abroad. He also mentioned the distributed medical
education program in BC as a potential model for future international education (students from a number of
campuses share common classes (via videoconferencing) and participate in local, hands-on learning to
supplement the distance learning portion of their program).
One of the themes at UBC is creating the global engineer. This theme reflects the understanding that engineering
is a global profession and students benefit from learning to work in different countries. Dr. Hepburn suggested
that universities need to use their curriculum (particularly in engineering and business) to help students learn
about working in a global economy by providing students with opportunities such as learning through projectbased courses or incorporating international service learning into courses. Overall, education should be provided
to train students in non-Canadian issues as well as Canadian issues.
Following his presentation, Dr. Hepburn was asked for his opinion on the creation of satellite university campuses
in other countries. Dr. Hepburn noted that UBC did not incorporate a satellite campus as part of its delivery model
in order to maintain the integrity of its program; instead, the university is focusing on the creation of partnerships
with established universities.
A participant noted that Canadian students do not take part in international learning opportunities as often as
other countries send students or research teams to Canada. Dr. Hepburn suggested that language issues may
be a primary reason for this (not many Canadian students speak a language other than English or French). He
also noted that jurisdictional issues may play a part as it is difficult to promote a Canadian approach when there
is little coordination among Canadian universities who are seeking international learning opportunities. Currently
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, Queens 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?
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.
10
Take a holistic approach to connecting with international learning institutions such that a broad
understanding and knowledge of the university, its program, its values and standards exists to create
trust and mitigate risks.
The engineering profession should support leaders who propose innovative programs.
Engineers Canada should review the CEAB requirements and process to best incorporate
international/globalization elements. A table suggested that protecting the CEAB accreditation process
and standards has to be top priority while another encouraged the expansion of current CEAB initiatives
for cooperation with and examination of engineering education systems in other countries.
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 Canadas jurisdictional issues).
One group suggested that harmonization is unachievable and should not be pursued; instead, this group
suggested creating a range of standardized exams that would accommodate different course structures
to illustrate their competency in a particular area of engineering. Another table agreed and suggested a
two-pronged approach: a) develop high quality standards within the Canadian context; and b) help
international partners understand how their graduates can best prepare for entry into the profession in
Canada and help Canadian students and graduates understand the qualifications they will need to go
abroad. It was also suggested that harmonization could happen on a systems-wide basis or at a broad
standards level, rather than a specific curriculum, or delivery method, basis (e.g., outcomes-based
assessment).
11
A participant pointed out that, currently, there is no international body that develops or monitors
educational standards for the engineering profession; this may make it difficult to focus international
discussion on the harmonization of educational standards.
Despite their reservations about harmonization, all participants acknowledged the need to learn about
and from the experiences and systems of other countries with the aim of continuous improvement in
Canada. One participant succinctly noted that a little bit of humility will help us learn and continue to
maintain and improve our high standards.
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, and the
engineering industry. He also outlined some hurdles that are faced in international engineering, discussed the
concept of reciprocity and highlighted some implications for Canadian practice.
Mr. Boyd made four main points in his presentation:
1. As Canadian engineers, our primary responsibility is to protect Canadas quality of infrastructure and through
it, our quality of life. He suggested that to do this well, on the international stage, Canadian engineering
companies need to build sustainable practices that emphasize the creation of local partnerships and the
development of local offices. This helps address the need for trained engineers who can work locally (local
engineers are trained and accredited locally); the issue of mobility (by transferring technology, cultural
learning, etc. through the local office); and the need for local and innovative approaches.
2. Intellectual colonialism is dead. Mr. Boyd noted that knowledge moves quickly and a sustainable practice
allows companies to nimbly take advantage of opportunities.
3. Knowledge about educational comparison is useful for local Canadian firms hiring immigrants. By working
locally, with local staff, understanding of the local rules of business is gained. Reciprocity is a key ingredient
in successful working relationships and agreements. And, governments should challenge the profession to
find solutions to engineering problems.
4. A partnership is always a learning experience and bad surprises should always result in the immediate
suspension of reciprocity.
Following his presentation, Mr. Boyd responded to questions from participants. A participant noted that high
quality education is a Canadian strength and the work that has been done regarding accreditation and credential
recognition is important. Mr. Boyd agreed that the work of Engineers Canada in this regard has been very useful,
especially for small- and medium-sized companies. For larger companies, who are able to create the sustainable
business model outlined by Mr. Boyd, local partnerships provide the means by which the company can decipher
and understand the meaning of locally obtained education and credentials.
Mr. Boyd was also asked to expand on his statement that government is not challenging the engineering
profession. He noted that government is most often fiscally driven when seeking a consultant. He suggested that
seeking the cheapest way to do a job does not spark or allow innovation. Governments need to challenge
engineers to find solutions to the big challenges they are facing (e.g., climate change).
1 FIDIC is an association representing 84 countries. It advocates on behalf of industry at the international level (e.g., to the World Bank).
12
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 clients needs or those that accurately anticipate
complications in the project and/or provide an innovative solution for a project.
Mr. Steeves suggested that quality-based procurement would be a better approach. In this process, the client and
firm first agree on the desired outcome, develop an understanding of the cost-benefit relationship (i.e., the cost of
risk), understand each others roles and responsibilities and select the right team for the job based on
qualifications and then based on this foundation, determine the needed resources for the project. Price is
important but is not the sole determinant for selection. Mr. Steeves encouraged participants to carefully consider
Quality Based Selection (QBS) as a best practice for engineers.
Following his presentation, Mr. Steeves fielded questions from participants.
A participant pointed out that the quality of a project is an important criterion when potential clients are reviewing
consultant proposals (i.e., evaluation criteria based 80% on quality and 20% on price). However, Mr. Steeves
pointed out that, if several applicants meet the quality criteria, the selection process would be based solely on
price from that point on.
Some participants agreed with Mr. Steeves that engineers need to recognize the value of their own work. Many
also agreed that placing a strong focus on quality over price can lead to a better product and long-term savings
through consideration of life-cycle costs. It is important to include life-cycle costs into the cost of a project.
When asked about international procurement, Mr. Steeves indicated that when price is the first consideration, it
can result in the hiring of international professionals who may not have appropriate experience at the local level
(e.g., no knowledge of engineering in a northern climate).
One participant commended the presenter for continuing to promote QBS and asked about the progress that has
been made in government. Mr. Steeves responded that progress has been made -- the province of Quebec is
going to adopt QBS and a federal government department is going to run a pilot. He also noted that FIDIC is also
developing a QBS document.
Another participant shared the following advice for the engineering profession:
- Showcase best practices - Pick like minded partners to undertake big and bold QBS projects that
display Canadian engineering expertise and then showcase the completed projects.
- Engage all relevant and interested parties as much as possible in the preferred process.
- Engage the right people (e.g., Treasury Board, Public Works and DFAIT) and clearly put your views
forward.
TABLE DISCUSSIONS PRACTICE ISSUES
Participants worked in table groups to answer two discussion questions:

1. What are the industrys key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?
2. How should our profession work to help resolve these issues?
13
1. What are the industrys key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?
Participants identified the following key issues regarding the international practice of engineering (in no
particular order of importance):
-
How do we best understand, respect and meet local engineering standards and codes of practice, and
business practices?
How can we address, at all levels, differences in ethics between practice in Canada and practices in
other countries? And, to what extent do we bring Canadas best knowledge or practices to international
work? Should we apply Canadian standards locally? Is this ethical or professional?
How do we make money on international contracts? Attracting and retaining people in our profession /
engineering service industry requires improved financial returns. Further, how do we avoid the race to
the bottom; that is, competition among Canadian firms just for sake of competing and turning
engineering services into a commodity?
How can we promote the benefits of QBS to our counterparts and colleagues? How can we effectively
integrate the QBS concept into our business so that we can be innovative, provide clients with the best
value for cost on a life cycle basis, manage risk, and easily identify the value-added portion of projects?
How can we embed QBS and life cycle analysis into trade negotiations and the education system?
How can we, as a profession, be more open to innovation? How can we increase appreciation that there
is a wide variance in correct engineering solutions?
How can we further address jurisdictional issues in Canada that are limiting our international mobility?
How can we promote the importance of partnering with credible local experts?
How can we develop competencies in Canadian engineers so they can easily undertake international
work?
How can we more effectively and accurately assess an international engineers experience?
How can we control the chain of custody and responsibility for engineering work done in other countries
for Canadian projects being undertaken by locally trained (i.e., not Canadian) engineers?
How can we continue to develop relationships (with government, local partners, other countries
engineering associations, etc.)? Relationships are vital to moving forward into a successful future; they
lead to trust and a deeper understanding of local needs and realities.
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.
14
Raise the profile of the engineering profession to government and decision-makers. Provide clear (and
forceful) advice to decision-makers (including those who negotiate international agreements) regarding
the desired future direction of the engineering profession.
Provide guidance to educators regarding the desired future direction of the engineering profession so
that appropriate tools, programs and courses can be developed at educational institutions to support the
vision.
Proactively educate clients, politicians, supply officers, professional engineers and educators on the full
cost analysis / life cycle approach.
Develop rules or standards for the profession regarding the need for a life cycle approach to project
proposals (e.g., additional spending at the design phase can create savings in operations and
maintenance). Ensure that these standards benefit everyone and promote the principles of QBS.
The Engineers Canada Government Relations Committee could play a larger role.
Take action even before the exact solution has been found
WORKSHOP WRAP-UP
Paul Amyotte closed the workshop on behalf of Dick Fletcher. He thanked the presenters for their stimulating and
thoughtful presentations. He also thanked participants for the high level of interest and effort throughout the
workshop. Finally, he thanked those responsible for organizing the workshop including Lynn Tremblay, Chantal
Guay, Ken McMartin and their teams.
Mr. Amyotte shared Mr. Fletchers key lessons from the day:
- There is a need to speak with a single, national voice. Engineers Canada could lead this effort but other
key members of the engineering community need to be engaged.
- Key barriers to international work need to be targeted and removed while maintaining Canadian
standards. Canada should not be complacent about its own excellence; there are many good engineers
throughout the world.
- There is great value to be found in collaborating with other professions (e.g., architects).
- The importance of strong, effective relationships cannot be overstated. An ongoing dialogue and
continued open communication will help address current and future issues.
All workshop feedback will be provided to Engineer Canadas International Committee for consideration. After
completing their analysis of the materials, the Committee will report its findings or recommendations to the Board
of Engineers Canada. Decisions of the Board will be communicated to all participants
At the end of the workshop, participants were asked to submit a feedback form with their evaluation of the days
proceedings. This feedback is summarized in Appendix C.
All workshop presentations and this summary report will be available online to all participants as soon as
possible.
15
APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
David Adams
Kim Allen
Paul Ballantyne
Pat Quinn
Kathyrn Sutherland
Robert Wilson
Frank Denton
Kris Dove
Lloyd Henderson
Mark Tokarik
Charles Boisvert
Chris Zinck
Gerrie Doyle
John Hepburn
David Strong
Gordon Griffith
Chantal Guay
Jerry Carter
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Ishwar Bathia
Thomas Chong
Denis Dixon
David Euler
Michael Price
Paul Amyotte
Darryl Ford
Gillian Pichler
Jim Smith
Jean-Bernard Ratt
George Roter
Andy Robinson
Nathan Lysons
Zaki Ghavitian
Maria Pantazi-Peck
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Bob Dony
Diane Freeman
Santosh Gupta
Johnny Zuccon
Digvir Jayas
Dick Fletcher
Len White
Louis Tremblay
Paul Blanchard
Darrel Danyluk
John Plant
Jacinta OBrien
John Power
Michele Cooper
Andrew Steeves
Will Meyer
Ken McMartin
Table 10
Table 11
Catherine Karakatsanis
James Lee
Michael Mastromatteo
Howard Brown
Tina Maki
Louise Quesnel
Claude Lagu
Michael Ball
John Boyd
Stephanie Price
Facilitation Team, Intersol Group

Frank Van Gool
Facilitator
Kerrianne Carrasco
Report Writer
Alana Lavoie
16
APPENDIX B WORKSHOP PROGRAM
17
18
19
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
di
No opinion
Does not apply
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FEEDBACK
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
26
3. The agenda was followed and the time allocated to each item
12
22
4. All participants were able to take part and contribute

meaningfully to the discussions
15
21
5. All participants listened carefully to each other
15
22
6. Deliberations were conducted in a thoughtful and objective

manner
14
22
7. All aspects of issues were explored
19
13
8. Conflicts were openly explored and constructively managed
19
9. My participation contributed to the outcomes achieved
21
10. Do you believe there is value in holding another such workshop

in the future?*
20
10
11. Overall, I am satisfied with the workshop and feel that my time
was well spent
19
17
Workshop Evaluation Form (39/60)
WORKSHOP
2
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
20
What was your most valuable learning or insight from this workshop?
Engineering profession is evolving mostly for the better and issues are addressed professionally
albeit at glacial speed
All of the activities that are going on in education, professional organizations and industry and the
insight from those who are in the game
Willingness to incorporate global exposure into undergraduate engineering program.
Commitment to maintain high standards
Information on US licensing. Review of Engineers Ireland and challenge in common EU
accreditation for negotiating FTAs
Energy and interest to focus on the future engineering issues. Development/management is
required and not well coordinated (yet)
Knowing about the challenges of the engineering industry and profession
Better model of selling engineering services internationally Canadian only multi-national forms.
Perils of price based procurement of engineering services to the future of engineering in Canada
The open dialogue between the various stakeholders in the engineering profession was very
enlightening
Still issues with the CEAB strongly influencing engineering education
The difficulty in educational standards and experience standard
The general feeling over an issue that we need to solve as soon as we can
Much better feel far how you in Canada work from the engineering profession. You appear a lot
more in common across the provinces then differences well worth building upon
Was all good
Accreditation drives engineering education. I was particularly interested in the education
discussions
Heating view points and experiences from other participants
Meeting some of the participants and discussing the erroneous concept that a Masters should be
required
Engineers Canada plus others (ACEC-Canada) must increase our involvement in free trade
negotiation especially procurement
Qualifications are not universal
The world is a big place
Stage setting session
American accreditation/licensing system. Practice issues (QBS)
Hearing from some engineering deans about CEAB realities
Perspectives from non-educational participants
Gained valuable learning from all speakers and participants. Enjoyed and had good conversation
with John Power
To be open to global engineers
Very good discussion of issue, very educational for me
The expectations of trade negotiations
Some important actors were absents Qualifications Board, Accreditation Board and Deans
That the organizers had entire session on engineering, education and did not bother to consult
nor invite members of the accreditation board, except the chair. The knowledge about
international educational program and systems that many AB members have could have added
maternally to the understanding of this important topic.
21
How would you rate the overall value of this event (relevance) on a scale of 1 to 5?
Note: low value 1, high value 5
5 = 16/39
The presence of DFAIT worth the effort alone, the input of speakers was insightful :) not insightful
This is very important issue for the future of engineering in Canada
There was not enough Q&A time. These should have been 1 less session and expand time for
discussion. Thank you for putting on the session.
Not much I did not already know and I am not sure how much further this workshop moved the
issue of globalization along Engineers Canada agenda.
4 = 17/39 3 = 2/39
2 = 2/39
no rating = 2/39
In your opinion, what was MOST relevant or valuable about the workshop?
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.
22
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 its 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--vis procurement issues
Education standardized exams
Pitch for Ireland tourism
Government perspectives
Presentation by architects 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 Canadas internationalism (harmonization) efforts and
rationale for same would be useful
Invite larger student representation at future meetings
Well done International Committee
Merci Lynn!
This event was missing a clear set of objectives and expected outcomes. As well there was no
explanation about what was expected of participants prior to the event. If a future event is
planned, it is essential to articulate the objectives-goals, and expected outcomes clearly. And
these should be tied into the strategic plan of Engineers Canada, so there is an understanding
about how the results fit into Engineers Canada mandate and goals.
23
Globalization Workshop Follow Up
C-476-6.3
Appendix C
3-Feb-2012
Page 1 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 Canadas current strategic elements and suggested future actions.
Next Steps
The International Committee proposes to establish three task groups, one for each of Education, Registration, and Practice, to carry out a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity,
and threat) analysis about international issues and trends related to each of the themes. The task groups will be provided with both the comments obtained from the workshop and
information already received from the international activities of Engineers Canada and the International Committee. The task groups will consist of knowledgeable members,
comprising of volunteers, constituent association staff and experts from across Canada.
Each of the three SWOT analyses will be used by the International Committee to identify potential strategies to address relevant issues.
3-Feb-2012
Page 2 of 29

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 Canadas 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 Canadas 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 3 of 29

List of acronyms:
ABET
ACEC
AIT
APEC
APEC Engineer
AUCC
CA
CCTT
CEAB
CEEA
CELF
CEQB
CEO-Group
CFES
CFL
CNNAR
CTI
DFAIT
DLC
ENAEE
EGAD
EIT
EMF
EUGENE
Eur-ace
EWB
GRPA
IC
IEA
HEI
MRA
NCDEAS
OAS
PIEVC
PPE
QBS
TASC
TILMA
UPADI
WA
WFEO
WFEO-CEE
3-Feb-2012
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology - United States (www.ABET.org)

Association of Consulting Engineering Companies-Canada (www.acec.ca)
Agreement on Internal Trade (www.ait-aci.ca/)
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (www.apec.org)
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Engineers Registry (www.washingtonaccord.org)
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (www.aucc.ca)
Constituent Associations (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/co_cms.cfm)
Canadian Council of Technologists and Technicians (www.cctt.ca)
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_accreditation.cfm)
Canadian Engineering Education Association (www.ceea.ca)
Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum
Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board (www.engineerscanada.ca/e/pr_qualifications.cfm )
Chief Executive Officer Group
Canadian Federation of Engineering Students 9
Canadian Framework for Licensure (see Appendix A)
Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators 9
Commission des titres des ingenieurs (www.cti-commission.fr)
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (www.international.gc.ca)
Deans Liaison Committee
European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education
Engineering Graduate Attribute Development
Engineer in Training
Engineers Mobility Forum (www.washingtonaccord.org)
European and Global Engineering Education
European Accredited Engineer (label applied to European accredited engineering programs)
Engineers without Borders (www.ewb.ca)
Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee
International Committee
International Engineering Alliance (www.washingtonaccord.org)
Higher Education Institutions
Mutual Recognition Agreement
National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science
Organization of American States (www.oas.org)
Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee
Professional Practice Exam
Qualifications-Based Selection
The Alliance of Sector Councils (www.councils.org/)
Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (www.tilma.ca)
Pan American Union of Engineering Organizations (www.upadisede.org/indexingles.htm)
Washington Accord (www.washingtonaccord.org)
World Federation of Engineering Organizations (www.wfeo.net)
World Federation of Engineering Organizations Committee on Engineering and the Environment (www.wfeo.net/environment)
Page 4 of 29
Listed below are the Workshop themes and the questions asked of the participants during table discussions. The comments generated from the
discussions were numbered in order from 1 to 78. After consolidating the comments and collating them into the three groups education, practice and
regulation, the comment numbers provide a link back to the questions to keep the comments in context.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ISSUES

1.
What are the trade issues that you believe should be the professions highest priority for resolution?
Workshop comments 1 to 15 are in response to this question.
2.
What is the best way to involve the engineering profession so that it may serve as an effective partner in trade negotiations and the establishment of trade positions?
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.)?
3.
To what degree should we work to harmonize our education standards with other countries?
PRACTICE ISSUES
1.
What are the industrys key issues regarding the international practice of engineering?
2.
How should our profession work to help resolve these issues?

3.
How should our profession work to help resolve these issues?

3-Feb-2012
Page 5 of 29
Table Discussion Comments
Status
Suggested Lead Role in Strategic

Further Development
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.
3-Feb-2012
International Cttee
CEAB
CEQB
CEO Group
CEAB will continue to support reciprocity

at the international education level,
according to an established set of
priorities, and per the ABs 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).
Page 6 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, problemsolving 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.
Status
The CEAB accredits undergraduate
engineering programs that meet or
exceed educational standards acceptable
for professional engineering registration in
Canada.

Further Development
Element
CEAB
NCDEAS
CFES
CEEA
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
1
methods of valuing program curriculum
and about distance learning.

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 Deans
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.
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (2010), Accreditation Criteria and Procedures Appendix 5, Use of K-Factor, p. 59.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2010.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 7 of 29

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).
Status
In respect of the CEAB Graduate Attribute
criteria, which evaluate program
outcomes, a transition period was
provided to allow Canadian engineering
programs time to develop and implement
systems required to comply with these
new criteria.

Further Development
Element
CEAB
NCDEAS
CEEA
CFES

CEAB will continue to liaise with the
NCDEAS on education-related matters,
including innovative approaches to
learning.
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.
3-Feb-2012
Page 8 of 29

39. The practice of engineering should be
more fully integrated into educational
programs.
Status
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

Further Development
Element
CEAB
NCDEAS
CEQB

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.
Beyond the accreditation requirements

listed above, it is not the role of Engineers
Canada to dictate curriculum content or
delivery methods.
3-Feb-2012
Page 9 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.
38. Finally, they noted that innovation can

be expensive and wondered how it would
be funded in the current environment of
fiscal restraint.
3-Feb-2012
Status
The issue of specific modes of learning is
not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.

Further Development
Element
NCDEAS
CEEA
CFES
NCDEAS

Participate into the discussions and foster
discussions
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
ABs perspective on distance learning..
Not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.
Page 10 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.
Status
The CEAB is responsible for monitoring
education and accreditation
developments internationally, and does
so by conducting substantial equivalency
visits, observing accreditation systems in
other jurisdictions, participating on
international committees, and through the
Washington Accord.
48. New approaches should be subject to

continuous monitoring to gauge success,
gaps and best practices.
Canadian engineering faculties actively

pursue opportunities for international
student exchanges and faculty members
collaborate internationally on research.
49. Create linkages between institutions

(e.g. for exchanges). CEAB supports
innovative approaches to building such
linkages.
Involvement in IEA as well
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).

Further Development
Element
International
Committee
CEAB
CEEA

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.
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, multinational degrees and incorporating crosscultural working skills in education were
also noted as potentially effective
approaches.
3-Feb-2012
Page 11 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.
Status
Revisions to the CEAB transfer credit
regulations, to facilitate international
exchanges, are underway (currently in
consultations with Constituent
Associations and with NCDEAS).

Further Development
Element
CEAB
NCDEAS
CAs
CEAB will finalize new transfer credit

regulations that recognize the various
international agreements and MRAs to
which Engineers Canada is a signatory.
Engineers Canada through CEAB will

continue to support the EGAD
(Engineering Graduate Attribute
Development) project for the benefit of
engineering programs.
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).
43. The engineering profession should
support leaders who propose innovative
programs.
45. Institutions should be the innovators;

bringing ideas and proposals to CEAB.
3-Feb-2012
Engineers Canada
Engineers Canada provides financial
support to the EGAD project that allows
CEAB
the NCDEAS to develop tools and
techniques for us by all engineering
programs to demonstrate compliance with
the CEABs Graduate Attribute criteria.
Furthermore, Engineers Canada
recognizes contributions to engineering
education through its Medal for Distinction
in Engineering Education for exemplary
contribution to engineering teaching at a
Canadian University, awarded annually.
CEAB
The CEAB maintains ongoing dialogue
with the NCDEAS through the DLC
NCDEAS
(Deans Liaison Committee) about issues
related to engineering education.
In addition, Engineers Canada staff
participates in the semi-annual meetings
of the NCDEAS.
Engineers Canada, through its Award

Committee, will continue to recognize
excellence in engineering education
through the annual awards program.
CEAB will continue to liaise with the

NCDEAS on education-related matters,
including innovative approaches to
learning.
Page 12 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.
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.
54. Build on successes that focus on
hands-on involvement (e.g. Engineers
Without Borders).
3-Feb-2012
Status
Canada.

Further Development
Element
NCDEAS

Canada.
NCDEAS
Begin to work with EWB.
Engineers Canada
Constitute Associations
Page 13 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 Canadas jurisdictional
issues).
Status
The CEAB is responsible for monitoring
education and accreditation
developments internationally, and does
so by conducting substantial equivalency
visits, observing accreditation systems in
other jurisdictions, participating on
international committees, and through the
Washington Accord.
The WA, in particular, establishes a
global standard for engineering
education.

Further Development
Element
CEAB

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.
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 twopronged 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).
3-Feb-2012
Page 14 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.
Status
IEA and to a lesser extent WFEO are
discussing education 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.
66. How can we develop competencies in At the education level, CEAB Graduate
Canadian engineers so they can easily
Attribute criteria are intended to assure
undertake international work?
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.
3-Feb-2012

Further Development
Element
CEAB
NCDEAS
CEEA
CFES
EWB
IC Bilateral Agreements
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
Page 15 of 29
Status

Further Development
Element
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 valueadded portion of projects? How can we
embed QBS and life cycle analysis into
trade negotiations and the education
system?
ACEC
The issue of QBS is the subject of an
2
Engineers Canada position statement ,
GRPA Cttee
as follows:
In the interest of public safety, innovation
and lower life cycle costs for public works,
the federal government should adopt
regulations requiring that qualificationsbased selection be used for all federal
procurement where engineering services
are retained. These requirements will
provide quality and value while promoting
sustainability in infrastructure renewal and
lead to life cycle cost savings.
The GRPA (Government Relations and

Public Affairs) Committee of Engineers
Canada will ensure accuracy and
currency of the QBS position statement.
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.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_qualificationbasedselection.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 16 of 29

10. Ensure robust accountability for
international engineers offering services
in other countries.
Status
Engineers Canadas Constituent
Associations have oversight responsibility
for the practice of engineering in Canada.
59. How do we best understand, respect

and meet local engineering standards and
codes of practice, and business
practices?
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
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.
The outsourcing of engineering services
is not within the mandate of Engineers
Canada.
14. Address the challenges presented by

changing demographics in Canada.
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).
3-Feb-2012

Further Development
Element
International Cttee
CEO Group

CEO Group will continue development of
the Canadian Framework for Licensure
(see Appendix A).
practice level, including providing input to
APEC Engineer registries.
IC needs to monitor this in discussions
with DFAIT etc.
Engineers Canada
Staff
Women in Engineering
Committee
First Nations Joint
Committee
ACEC
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 dont have the legal
responsibility of our CAS.
Engineers Canada will monitor actual
versus predicted trends and provide
periodic updates to the labour market
study.
For Engineers Canadas committees and
task forces.
As an issue for further development, other

members of the CELF (Canadian
Engineering Leadership Forum),
particularly ACEC (Association of
Consulting Engineering CompaniesCanada) are best positioned at the
national level. Provincially, it may be in
the purview of the local Constituent
Association or.
Page 17 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 Canadas
best knowledge or practices to
international work? Should we apply
Canadian standards locally? Is this ethical
or professional?
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.
Status
Demonstrated knowledge about
engineering law and ethics through
successful completion of the PPE
(Professional Practice Examination) is a
requirement for all engineering licenses in
Canada.

Further Development
Element
International
Committee
CEO Group
CEO Group
CEQB Syllabus and
Discipline and
Enforcement
Help move this issue internationally

through our work with WFEO and IEA and
UPADI.
Engineers Canada has embraced
GRPA Cttee
innovation and innovative practices on a
PIEVC
number of fronts.
WFEO CEE
CELF
The issue of Research and Development
and Innovation Spending is the subject of
an Engineers Canada position
3
statement .
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.
Engineers Canada will communicate

more widely its perspective and
contributions to innovation.
Engineers Canadas 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.
http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/files/positions_rdinnovation.pdf
3-Feb-2012
Page 18 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?
65. How can we promote the importance
of partnering with credible local experts?
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?
70. Value ourselves and our services.
Speak with one voice to promote the
value of engineering (e.g., through
Engineers Canada) and to help smalland 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.
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.
73. Raise the profile of the engineering
profession to government and decisionmakers. 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.
3-Feb-2012
Status
Canada.

Further Development
Element
ACEC
CELF

Canada.
Considered within the CFL
ACEC
CELF
CEO Group
Engineers Canada

Canada.
ACEC
Engineers Canada is a member of the

CELF (Canadian Engineering Leadership
Forum), an information-sharing body.
CELF

Canada.
ACEC
Continue the development of CFL and in

particular the element of jurisdiction This
is of importance to CAs so it is an item
that needs discussion probably at the?
Page 19 of 29

78. Take action even before the exact
solution has been found.
Status
We are e.g. this workshop to discuss
the issues and identify potential actions

Further Development
Element
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.
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.
International Cttee
CEO Group
Engineers Canada Staff
GR messages
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.
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 federallynegotiated trade agreements on
provincial authorities and responsibilities.
Engineers Canadas Constituent
Associations have oversight responsibility
for the practice of engineering in Canada
International Cttee
CEO Group

the CFL
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.
3-Feb-2012
Page 20 of 29

25. Creating a common voice, and
working together on country-specific
agreements.
Status

Further Development
Element
28. Providing the engineering professions

input, with leadership from Engineers
Canada, into key elements of agreements
(e.g., regulators, profession, and
business).
Additionally, Engineers Canada will

consider adding bench strength to
discussions with DFAIT by enlisting
support from CELF partners.
31. Using the Canadian Engineering

Leadership Forum (CELF) to Address
Trade Issues
73. Raise the profile of the engineering
profession to government and decisionmakers. Provide clear (and forceful)
advice to decision-makers (including
those who negotiate international
agreements) regarding the desired future
direction of the engineering profession.
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.
Engineers Canada
Staff
CEO Group
International Cttee
CEAB
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.
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.
3-Feb-2012
Page 21 of 29

reciprocity (e.g., if Canada has access to
other markets, do we want to allow other
countries access to our markets?)
Status
The issue of reciprocity can occur at two
junctures: equivalence of education and
equivalence at the practice level.

Further Development
Element
International Cttee
CEAB
CEQB
CEO Group
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.
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.
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.

CEAB will continue to support reciprocity
at the international education level,
according to an established set of
priorities, and per the ABs mandate to
provide advice to the Engineers Canada
Board of Directors on international
developments.
practice level on the basis of bilateral
agreements, including providing input to
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).
CEO Group

the CFL.
22. Establish a national licensing

framework with an agreed upon baseline
standard.
3-Feb-2012
Page 22 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?
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.

Further Development
Element
Status
The Canadian Framework for Licensure,
CEO Group
A
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.
Although Canada is the third largest net

4
exporter of engineering services ,
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

the CFL.
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
Engineers Canada Labour Market Study
3-Feb-2012
Page 23 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.
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).
3-Feb-2012
Status
The AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade)
mandates the removal of barriers that
may affect the provision of services,
including engineering services, among
the provinces and territories.

Further Development
Element
CEO Group

the CFL, which will provide a framework
for harmonizing requirements among the
CAs.
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.
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.
International Cttee
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.
Page 24 of 29

19. Involve Canadian High Commissions
in communications.
23. Learn from the Trade, Investment and

Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).
Status
Engineers Canada staff has identified an
opportunity to advise Canadian High
Commissions about the requirements for
entry to the engineering profession.

Further Development
Element
TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour

CEO Group
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.

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.
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.
As of April 1, 2009, more than 100

occupations, including engineers, 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.
3-Feb-2012
Page 25 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.
3-Feb-2012
Status
The Government Relations and Public
Affairs Committee provide strategic
direction in respect of promoting dialogue
between Engineer Canada and the
federal government.

Further Development
Element
Page 26 of 29

17. Support Engineers Canadas
important role in providing a national
voice to the profession. Engineers
Canada should have a constant presence
in discussions as it can provide a
permanent and consistent voice for the
profession (e.g., knowledge is easily lost
as employees change jobs). One table
encouraged the appointment of an
Engineers Canada representative to
assist with ongoing education and
communication related to the profession.
Status
The Government Relations and Public
Affairs Committee provide strategic
direction for core messaging. Engineers
Canada staff and the CEO provide
tactical support for communications
efforts with external audiences.

Further Development
Element
GRPA Cttee

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.
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.
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.
3-Feb-2012
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
Page 27 of 29

67. How can we more effectively and
accurately assess an international
engineers experience?
Status
CEQB work on competency based
assessment of engineering experience
As part of the admissions process, all
Constituent Associations have some form
of evaluation procedures (i.e., a Board of
Examiners, or Experience Committee) to
assess the competence of international
experiences.

Further Development
Element
CEQB
CAs
CEO Group
IC
ACEC
CELF

Continue the development of tools for the
benefit of CAs to assess experience
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).
15. Are we chasing a phantom? Are we at
trade capacity already?
20. Identify a source of funding for
international negotiations.
3-Feb-2012

Canada.
Canada.
Canada.(in relation to reciprocity
agreement s funding is available through
DFAIT and staff to monitor)
Z
Z
Page 28 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.
3-Feb-2012
Page 29 of 29
C-476-6.3
Appendix B
Impacts of Globalization
Introduction:
Education and registration requirements for international mobility are changing rapidly. In recognition of
these changes, the Engineers Canada 2011-2016 Strategic Plan calls for Assessment of impacts of
globalization on engineering education, practice and the regulation of the profession.
Information about the changes that are taking place is available from various sources; this information
requires analysis and synthesis so that current trends are identified and shared. From this, potential
impacts on engineering education, practice and regulation can be identified so that Engineers Canada
and its Constituent Associations can proactively address issues and challenges for the benefit of the
profession.
Process:
In order to address this issue, the Board recognized that it would be appropriate to carry out an in-depth
review of international trends and how they may affect the regulation of engineering in Canada.
To that purpose, the International Committee organized a workshop on the impacts of globalization of
engineering in Canada. Titled Globalization of Engineering Education and Practice: Impacts on
Regulation in Canada, the one day workshop was held in Ottawa on May 5, 2011, and attended by 61
participants. Speakers included experts from the Constituent Associations, industry, academia, and
included representatives from the international engineering community.
The intent of the workshop was to look in depth at international trends with respect to mobility of
engineering and the potential impacts on education, practice, and regulation in Canada. The workshop
was divided into four sessions covering a series of topics. The first session set the stage and was made
up of three presentations. The other three sessions covered issues of (1) trade and mobility; (2)
education structure and delivery; and, (3) international issues affecting engineering practice.
Each session consisted of two presentations, followed by discussions at each table to identify and
explore issues raised by the speakers and table participants, which were then reported to the group
during a plenary session. The workshop facilitator provided a synopsis of the workshop and recorded
all comments and issues raised during the table discussions.
Next Steps
The International Committee is currently reviewing and analyzing the workshop information and is
preparing a document that itemizes and collates the workshop comments into three themes: (1)
impacts on engineering education, (2) impacts on engineering practice, and (3) impacts on regulation.
Once completed, the document will be shared with the workshop participants.
Based on the three themes, the International Committee proposes to establish three task groups to
carry out a SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) analysis about international issues and
trends related to each of the themes. The task groups will be provided with both the comments
obtained from the workshop and information already received from the international activities of
Engineers Canada and the International Committee. The task groups will consist of knowledgeable
members, comprising of volunteers, constituent association staff and experts from across Canada.
Each of the three SWOT analyses will be used by the International Committee to identify potential
strategies to address any relevant issue identified.
Expected Outcome:
The results of the review will allow the Committee to focus its work plan to address relevant issues so
that up to date information and recommendations can be provided to the Board, the constituent
associations, Board committees, our Canadian Engineering Leadership Forum partners, and others as
required.
Dated: February 8, 2012
C-476-6.4
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
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-476-6.5
REGIONAL CONGRESS OPEN ISSUES REPORT

Purpose:
To update Council on issues raised at Regional Congresses
No moti on required
Prepared by : Alliso n Elliot Se cretariat Co -ordinator
1. Background
At its August 2010 meeting, the Executive Committee, by consensus, agreed that a
Regional Councillors Report, setting o ut chapter issues t hat were approved at each
Regional Congress to go forward to Regional Councillors Committee, be included as
an information item on fut ure Co uncil agenda.
This was in respo nse from a Councillor for the establishment of a chapter issues
record.
A complete report w ill be provided fo llowing the Regional Congress scheduled for
Frebruary 25th.
C-476-6.6
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
Councils 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
Appendix A
February 8, 2012
Monte Kwinter MPP (York Centre)
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation
539 Wilson Heights Boulevard
Downsview, Ontario M3H 2V7
Dear Mr. Kwinter,
Re: Bill 15, Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Act, 2011 - Meeting Request for Professional
Engineers Ontario
I am writing to you regarding Bill 15, an Act respecting the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers
(OSPE), which you sponsored and that has received first reading in the Ontario Legislature.
We want to advise you that because the Bill is in conflict with the Professional Engineers Act, Professional
Engineers Ontario (PEO), the licensing and regulating body for engineers and engineering in Ontario, will be
actively opposing its passage and, as such, recommend it not be further pursued.
As far back as 2009, PEO advised OSPE of its concerns with Bill 15 and to date these concerns have not
been addressed, despite numerous meetings.
We believe passage of Bill 15 will lead to confusion regarding PEOs jurisdiction to govern licence holders
and regulate the practice of professional engineering. In particular, we are concerned that the language in Bill
15 will create public confusion about the difference between a professional engineer, i.e. someone licensed
by PEO to practise professional engineering, and someone with an engineering education.
In addition, PEO does not believe passage of Bill 15 is needed for OSPE to advocate effectively for
engineers. Indeed, in a recent survey of PEO members about Bill 15, fewer than 25 per cent of professional
engineers responded that they think OSPE requires legislative authority for it to be the advocate for the
We have already had inquiries from the Opposition at Queen's Park on our position. However, we would first
like to request a meeting with you to discuss this matter further. I have asked Howard Brown to contact your
office to arrange for this meeting, at which we would be happy to share the survey of our members on this
issue and their over 60 pages of comments.
PEO would also welcome a representative from OSPE at the meeting, because while we oppose Bill 15,
PEO is very supportive of OSPE in general and works cooperatively with them in many ways. For example,
PEO jointly sponsors the Ontario Professional Engineers Awards with OSPE. We collect OSPE fees through
2|P a g e
PEO invoices. OSPE representatives sit on many PEO committees. We have a Joint Relations Committee
with them, and encourage OSPE representation on our chapters. Indeed, we wish them every success.
In closing and on behalf of PEOs 29-member Council and our 80,000 licence and certificate holders, please
let me take this opportunity to note how much PEO values your continuing support of the engineering
profession, and the long and fruitful relationship we have enjoyed with you since your first election in May
1985.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to sitting down together.
Sincerely,
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 PEOS OPPOSITION TO BILL 15

Many OSPE members are not professional engineers
In fact, about one-third of OSPEs 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
PEOs 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 organizations 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 PEOs additional objects is:
1. To establish, maintain and develop standards of knowledge and skill among its members.
OSPE is one of many organizations advocating for the engineering profession
Others include Consulting Engineers of Ontario, Engineers without Borders, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Society of Civil Engineers, Engineers Canada, Association of Bangladeshi Engineers of Ontario
(ABEO), Canadian Society of Iranian Engineers and Architects, Association of Romanian Engineers in
Canada, Canadian Society for Bioengineering, Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering, Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Canadian Society for
Mechanical Engineering and many others.
Legislation is not necessary for a successful advocacy body
OSPE performs some of the same roles as the Ontario Bar Association does for lawyers and the Ontario
Medical Association does for doctors. Both of these organizations are very successful advocates without
legislation.
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Catherine Shearer-Kudel on behalf of OCEPP Articles

Allison Elliot
Josie Rubino (OCEPP)
FW: Engineering, policy and the extractive sector
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:11:47 AM
C-476-6.6
Appendix B
Hi Allison:
Forwarding this for correspondence for the next Council meeting package. I suggested she
consider submitting her comments as a letter to the editor of Dimensions. Its good to know
theres support and interest out there for the centre!
Cheers,
Catherine
From: Anne Johnson [mailto:Anne.Johnson@mine.queensu.ca]

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:09 PM
To: OCEPP Articles
Subject: Engineering, policy and the extractive sector
Hello,
I have just discovered this organizationwhat a delight! I enjoyed Erica Lees excellent article on
her work in Buenos Aires; she is a fellow Queens alumna and worked with my Masters supervisor
Caroline Baillie, who began the Waste for Life project there. I plan to spend this weekend reading
all the back issues, as the focus of the organization captures my research interests. I cant wait to
learn the views of others working at the nexus of policy and engineering.
I am now in the second year of doctoral studies in the interdisciplinary Cultural Studies program at
Queens University. My home department in Mining. I am interested in government relations
with industry and with industrys perception in the general public. I would like to both attend the
May conference and contribute to the Policy Engagement Journal. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you
Anne Johnson
PhD Student in Cultural Studies
Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Queens University
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Catherine Shearer-Kudel on behalf of OCEPP Articles

Allison Elliot
Josie Rubino (OCEPP)
FW: Engineering, policy and the extractive sector
Monday, January 30, 2012 9:11:47 AM
C-476-6.6
Appendix B
Hi Allison:
Forwarding this for correspondence for the next Council meeting package. I suggested she
consider submitting her comments as a letter to the editor of Dimensions. Its good to know
theres support and interest out there for the centre!
Cheers,
Catherine
From: Anne Johnson [mailto:Anne.Johnson@mine.queensu.ca]

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:09 PM
To: OCEPP Articles
Subject: Engineering, policy and the extractive sector
Hello,
I have just discovered this organizationwhat a delight! I enjoyed Erica Lees excellent article on
her work in Buenos Aires; she is a fellow Queens alumna and worked with my Masters supervisor
Caroline Baillie, who began the Waste for Life project there. I plan to spend this weekend reading
all the back issues, as the focus of the organization captures my research interests. I cant wait to
learn the views of others working at the nexus of policy and engineering.
I am now in the second year of doctoral studies in the interdisciplinary Cultural Studies program at
Queens University. My home department in Mining. I am interested in government relations
with industry and with industrys perception in the general public. I would like to both attend the
May conference and contribute to the Policy Engagement Journal. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you
Anne Johnson
PhD Student in Cultural Studies
Robert M. Buchan Department of Mining
Queens University
C-476-6.7
COMPLAINTS, DISCIPLINE AND LICENSING STATISTICS

Purpose: To provide a statistical report to Council regarding Complains, Discipline and
Licensing
No motion required
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
Appendix A
COMPLAINTS & INVESTIGATION STATISTICS
March 2012 Council Meeting Report
Complaints & Investigations

2010
2011
101
61
Investigation in progress at
previous year-end
--
88
108*
Total files handled
--
149
115
N/A
100
113
Total files disposed of by COC
81
49
Complaint Matters Referred to

DIC2
21
Matters not Referred, no other

action
41
34
Matters not Referred - other

actions by COC
19
13
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
# Complaints filed
Total current active files
2012
(to Feb. 8)
For investigations completed in the calendar year.

2009/2010 figures are based on date COC decision to refer is made.
*
Reflects adjustment to 2010 files in progress at yr-end figure.
2
Glossary of Terms:
Complaints filed Complaints filed with the Registrar in a calendar year.
Investigation Complete Completed Complaint Summary document sent to the
respondent.
C-476-6.7
Appendix B
DISCIPLINE STATISTICS March 2012 Council Meeting Report
Discipline Phase
2009
2010
Matters Referred to Discipline
11
18
Hearings Commenced
13
Hearings Completed
11
16
20*
25
23
23
Pre-Hearing Conferences Held
12
27
Written Final Decisions Issued
14**
12**
Matters Pending (Caseload)
2011
2012
(up to
January 16)
*Two matters were referred separately and subsequently joined to be heard as one matter
(hearing completed in 2010)
** Two matters were joined and heard together as one (one decision issued) one of 14 in
2010 and one of 12 in 2011.
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO

P. ENG. STATISTICS
2011
JAN
Members on Register
Beginning
FEB
74,174
MAR
74,147
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,174
New Members
209
203
167
253
264
221
163
209
225
170
178
146
2,408
Reinstatements
82
54
57
42
91
47
28
18
391
127
73
87
1,097
Transfers Out
Resignation - Regular
(21)
(22)
(18)
(17)
(20)
(15)
(23)
(25)
(33)
(14)
(22)
(21)
(251)
- Retirees
(9)
(12)
(14)
(5)
(14)
(5)
(3)
(14)
(16)
(6)
(19)
(11)
(128)
(38)
(31)
(44)
(18)
(26)
(13)
(19)
(28)
(27)
(22)
(49)
(20)
(335)
Deletions - Regular
(171)
(73)
(91)
(169)
(69)
(1)
(342)
(314)
(174)
(103)
(88)
(1,595)
- Retirees
(79)
(3)
(5)
(141)
(90)
(80)
(67)
(3)
(1)
(461)
Deceased
74,147
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,909
74,909
60,884
11,626
61,077
11,634
60,995
11,687
61,144
11,561
61,393
11,587
61,577
11,637
61,615
11,679
61,558
11,581
61,619
11,642
61,628
11,618
61,610
11,616
61,656
11,677
61,656
11,677
1,637
1,552
1,633
1,555
1,511
1,514
1,580
1,463
1,487
1,516
1,591
1,576
1,576
74,147
74,263
74,315
74,260
74,491
74,728
74,874
74,602
74,748
74,762
74,817
74,909
74,909
331
83
241
37
396
57
303
35
280
34
283
39
233
165
300
193
305
146
294
175
276
205
242
46
3,484
1,215
Female Members on
Register - Beginning
New Female Engineers
6,663
41
6,704
35
6,739
29
6,768
26
6,794
52
6,846
18
6,864
46
6,910
(6)
6,904
23
6,927
19
6,946
24
6,970
17
6,663
324
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
Total Ending
Members on Register Summary
Full Fee Members
Partial Fee Remission - Retired
Fee Remission - Health, Post
Graduate and other
Total Membership
Membership Licence
Applications Received
Applicationsr Rec'd FCP
C-476-6.7
Appendix C

ENGINEER IN TRAINING - STATISTICS
2011
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
93
75
130
64
119
118
107
80
128
96
130
110
1,250
176
59
56
134
41
43
48
165
196
145
192
207
1,462
15
15
11
19
12
20
15
13
13
12
162
P. Eng. Approvals
(62)
(78)
(48)
(87)
(83)
(65)
(59)
(78)
(72)
(42)
(60)
(57)
(791)
Deletions
(36)
(38)
(21)
(21)
(9)
(4)
(5)
(109)
(11)
(12)
(102)
(29)
(397)
(115)
(71)
(157)
(64)
(83)
(46)
(140)
(674)
New Recordings
New Recordings FCP
Reinstatements
Non Payment
Deceased
Other
6,561
6,523
6,654
6,606
6,686
6,734
6,840
6,906
7,073
7,227
7,400
7,503
7,503
1,248
1,249
1,241
1,249
1,233
1,251
1,265
1,284
1,277
1,286
1,311
1,352
1,248
18
14
19
25
41
29
133
1,251
1,265
1,284
1,286
1,311
1,352
1,381
1,381
Total Ending
Female Recording on
Register
Beginning
New Female Recordings
Total Female Recordings
1,249
(8)
1,241
1,249
(16)
1,233
(7)
1,277
C-476-6.7
Appendix C

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION - STATISTICS
2011
JAN
FEB
4,549
4,553
62
63
4,611
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
4,536
4,568
4,575
4,580
4,586
4,605
4,621
4,641
4,656
4,683
4,549
61
61
61
63
64
59
60
59
59
63
62
4,616
4,597
4,629
4,636
4,643
4,650
4,664
4,681
4,700
4,715
4,746
4,611
37
28
49
38
32
28
38
40
37
22
50
30
429
Temporary
17
Sub Total
39
28
50
38
36
29
39
42
38
22
54
31
446
Regular
25
Temporary
Sub Total
25
(35)
(45)
(17)
(31)
(28)
(25)
(20)
(27)
(23)
(8)
(26)
(14)
(299)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(6)
Temporary
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(6)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(16)
Sub Total
(36)
(47)
(19)
(32)
(31)
(25)
(26)
(29)
(25)
(8)
(26)
(17)
(321)
C of A Holders - Beginning
Regular
Temporary
Sub Total
New Certificates Issued
Regular
Reinstatements
Deletions
Non Payment
Dormant/Suspension
Total Ending
Regular
Temporary
4,553
4,536
4,568
4,575
4,580
4,586
4,605
4,621
4,641
4,656
4,683
4,698
4,698
63
61
61
61
63
64
59
60
59
59
63
63
63
4,616
4,597
4,629
4,636
4,643
4,650
4,664
4,681
4,700
4,715
4,746
4,761
4,761
C-476-6.7
Appendix C

CONSULTANTS - STATISTICS
2011
JAN
FEB
1,250
1,242
New Designations
Reinstatements
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL
1,241
1,236
1,236
1,229
1,225
1,213
1,208
1,202
1,206
1,206
1,250
24
(8)
(5)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(15)
(5)
(6)
(5)
(8)
(3)
(75)
Consultants
Beginning of Period
Deletions
Total Ending
1,242
1,241
1,236
1,236
1,229
1,225
1,213
1,208
1,202
1,206
1,206
1,203
1,203
C-476-6.7
Appendix C
PEO STATISTICS
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
1996 - 2011
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
508
225
268
339
557
1,781
2,113
808
301
101
120
82
184
100
142
135
166
240
187
153
232
173
159
116
322
186
239
248
220
1,142
943
501
599
584
167
182
124
187
187
149
68
165
184
185
192
183
200
130
278
157
165
206
213
157
160
233
248
195
186
175
328
260
136
225
403
158
236
248
270
222
232
184
341
222
234
277
299
220
265
269
352
206
238
178
539
260
169
279
394
221
200
357
455
257
190
140
440
345
298
304
425
337
297
272
382
253
236
261
364
259
340
269
270
264
286
301
254
263
304
168
316
319
316
291
298
273
254
285
251
282
226
260
308
257
272
280
293
279
355
367
333
396
505
248
372
234
345
381
278
332
460
413
415
419
430
334
336
338
379
294
279
320
395
326
402
428
340
270
393
276
373
239
303
306
332
358
383
368
480
326
414
278
453
338
314
322
398
493
451
469
481
288
TOTAL
MONTHLY AVERAGE
Year To Date
7,203
600
7,203
1,987
166
1,987
5,333
444
5,333
1,954
163
1,954
2,373
198
2,373
2,902
242
2,902
3,101
258
3,101
3,461
288
3,461
3,850
321
3,850
3,342
279
3,342
3,371
281
3,371
3,893
324
3,893
4,413
368
4,413
4,107
342
4,107
4,137
345
4,137
4,699
392
4,699
Applications Received - Year To

Date
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Briefing Note - Information
C-476-6.8
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
N/A
To assist organizations with compliance with the Professional Engineers Act, Regulatory
Compliance is developing a Compliance Tool Kit. The Kit goes beyond dealing with the repeal
of the exception not to hold a licence set out section 12 (3) (a) to perform an act that is within
the practice of professional engineering in relation to machinery or equipment, other than
equipment of a structural nature, for use in the facilities of the persons employer in the
production of products by the persons employer.
From the discussions with numerous organizations related to the repeal of 12 (3) (a), many
have viewed it as a full Industrial Exception and they may not meet the current requirements
of the Professional Engineers Act. Thus, there may be need for a more comprehensive
Compliance Audit and Compliance Plan.
A draft of the kit was presented to the Executive Committee at its January 2012 meeting for
review and comment. The Committee directed that it forwarded to Council for its information.
1. Next Steps
Regulatory Compliance staff will continue to seek input regarding the Compliance
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
Appendix A
COMPLIANCE
TOOL KIT
For compliance with:
Professional Engineers Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.28
General R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941
Ontario Regulation 260/08
January 2012
Professional Engineers Ontario Compliance Tool Kit
Table of Contents
Introduction
Compliance Program
Audit
Results
Plan
Implement
Elements of Compliance Audit

PEO Guide Do I need a licence?
PEO Guide Do I need a certificate of authorization?
PEO Guide Use of the Professional Engineers Seal
4
5
6
7
Appendix A (i)
Appendix A (ii)
Appendix A (iii)
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
Responsibility
Identification
Seal
Question:
What work is
done that is
professional
engineering?
Question: Who is
taking
responsibility for
the professional
engineering work?
Question: How is
the responsible
engineer
identified?
Question: How
is the
responsibility
for the work
demonstrated?
- Definition
- Buildings
- Licence
- Exceptions
- Types of Licences
- C of A
- Title
- Public Conduct
- Use of Seal
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
Managements Response
PEA
12.(1)
Engaging in the
practice of
professional
engineering
Relevant noncompliant - 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
employers
facilities making
products for the
employer. 1
Relevant compliant organization uses nonengineers 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
PEA
12.(1)
PEA
12.(3)(a)
R941 53.
Engaging in the
practice of
professional
engineering
Licence is
excepted from
professional
engineering on
machinery or
equipment for
use in an
employers
facilities making
products for the
employer. 1
Use of seal
Finding
Action
Timeline
Relevant noncompliant 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
may qualify for licence
and request they start
their application with
PEO
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.
Immediately
Establish an electronic
process to seal
engineering work on
final product
Before Use of
Seal
guideline is
changed
Relevant compliant
- organization uses
non-engineers to do
professional
engineering on their
machinery or
equipment in their
facility to make their
product
Relevant compliant
organization does
not seal engineering
work on their final
product
2 months
Before Bill 68
proclaimed
by the
Ontario
government
Compliance Program Implement

During the implementation stage, PEO can be of assistance to facilitate an individuals or an
organizations compliance plan with the following administrative services: on-site at an
employers offices or in a key regional centre; web-based through information webinars; and
value-added to simplify and expedite PEOs licensing process.7
PEO administration services

On-site
Web-based
Value-added
- Presentations to
help interpret the
requirements of
the Act and
regulations
- Presentations to
help interpret the
requirements of
the Act and
regulations
- List of employees
who applied to PEO
and their licence
status
- Seminars to
explain the
licensing process
- Seminars to
explain the
licensing process
- Pre-screening of
new licence
applications
- Learning tool to
prepare for the PPE
- Bundling of new
licence applications
by employer to
administer them
together
- Invigilation of
Professional
Practice Exam
(PPE)
PEOs enforcement policy is to first educate, support and seek compliance within a reasonable
period of time before taking any enforcement action against any acts of non-compliance with
the laws and regulations governing the practice of professional engineering in Ontario.
You may wish to file your compliance plan with PEO.
7
Some conditions may apply such as minimum number of attendees and/or high demand regional sites.
APPENDIX
A (i)
APPENDIX
A (ii)
APPENDIX
A (iii)
10
APPENDIX
A (iv)
11
APPENDIX
B
12
APPENDIX
C
13
APPENDIX
D
14
APPENDIX
E
15
APPENDIX
F
16
C-476-6.9
COUNCILLORS ITEMS
a)
Notices of Motion
b)
Councillors' Questions
Purpose: To provide Councillors with an opportunity to provide notice of items for inclusion
on the next Council meeting agenda, and to ask questions.
No motion required
Prepared by: Allison Elliot, FCIS Secretariat Co-ordinator
C-476-7.1

476 Council Agenda Peo PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

476 Council Agenda Peo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council Meeting

476th Meeting of Council

Friday, March 2, 2012

PEO Interim Council Chambers

Briefing Note - Decision

476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

Thursday, March 1 and Friday, March 2, 2012

Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy

Government Liaison Program

Ontario Professional Engineers Awards

2.1 Professional Engineering Practice Guideline

2.2 OSPE Participation on the Government Liaison Committee

2.3 Establishment of an Emerging Engineering Disciplines Committee

2.4 Canadian Framework for Licensure Elements:

Accountability of Engineering Organizations

Continuing Professional Development

Negotiating International Recognition Agreements

ONGOING ISSUES & INITIATIVES

3.2 Engineer of Record Update

3.3 Appointment of a Councillor to the Society of Manufacturing Engineers Take

3.4 Professional Standards Industrial Sub-committee

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

4.2 In-Camera Minutes 475th Council Meeting December 11

4.3 Building Branding

4.4 Joint Relations Committee Update

4.5 OSPE Act Update

4.6 OSPE 2012 OPEA Proposal

4.7 Procedure to Address Council Conduct Concerns

4.8 Professional Conduct

4.9 Complaints Review Councillor Reports

4.10 Discipline Decisions and Reasons

4.11 Legal Update

5.2 Minutes 474th Council Meeting November 2011

5.3 Minutes 475th Council Meeting December 2011

5.4 Consulting Engineer Designation Applications

5.6 Changes to Committees and Task Forces Roster

5.7 Approval of Examination Award Recipient

COUNCILLOR and INFORMATION ITEMS

6.2 Engineers Canada Update

6.3 Engineers Canada Globalization Workshop

6.4 Status of Council Resolutions (Work Plan)

6.5 Regional Congress Open Issues Report

6.7 Complaints, Discipline and Licensing Statistics

6.8 Professional Engineers Act Compliance Tool Kit

6.9 Councillor Items

Councillors Code of Conduct

Upcoming Meetings and Events

February 20, 2012 Dates are subject to change

February 20, 2012 Dates are subject to change

February 20, 2012 Dates are subject to change

Plenary Session Discussion

To review PEOs authority to carry out the following four programs:

476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

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

476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

Briefing Note Information

476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

Briefing Note Decision

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE GUIDELINE

2. Proposed Action / Recommendation

3. Next Steps (if motion approved)

476th Meeting of Council March 1-2, 2012

4. Peer Review & Process Followed