1.0  Professional Engineers Ontario

Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) is the association that regulates and sets standards for professional engineering in Ontario under the Professional Engineers Act.  PEO currently has a membership of about 62,000 licensed professional engineers.  The association is committed to fulfilling its legislated mandate, including participating in public debate and policy setting in its prime area of responsibility, protection of the public health, safety and welfare where engineering principles are involved.

PEO provides the engineering perspective on relevant public and technology-related issues, including protection of the natural environment.  PEO also publishes professional practice guidelines to provide PEO licence holders with guidance within the subject practice area, and with a better understanding of the engineering profession.  PEO guidelines complement the association’s definition of professional misconduct and the Code of Ethics, and may be used as a basis against which the conduct of professional engineers is judged in a PEO disciplinary proceeding.  PEO currently publishes eight professional practice guidelines related to code issues (see Appendix 1).

Each province and territory within Canada has an engineering regulatory body with regulatory powers similar to PEO’s.  As a group, these bodies regulate the engineering profession in Canada, and license a total of 160,000 engineers across the country.

2.0  Background

A joint Task Group of the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) and the Provincial/Territorial Committee on Building Standards (PTCBS) has been formed.  Its role is:

• to recommend strategies aimed at ensuring appropriate levels of national/provincial/territorial participation in a uniform building, plumbing and fire code development and review process; and
• to establish a coordinated code public review process that accommodates the needs of the CCBFC and the provinces/territories.

3.0  Rationale for PEO Involvement

PEO has a mandate to regulate activities that fall within the definition of the practice of professional engineering.  The Professional Engineers Act of Ontario defines professional engineering as:

"…any act of designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property or the public welfare is concerned and that requires the application of engineering principles."

Professional engineers undertake many of the acts described in the definition as building design professionals, and are responsible for ensuring that the health and safety of the public is explicitly considered at both the building design and construction stages.  In recognition of this fact, the involvement of professional engineers is required under the Ontario Building Code and under similar legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions. In addition, professional engineers ensure that both the building’s design and construction comply with other applicable legislation, codes and standards.

4.0  National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes Working Group

The National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes Working Group comprises seven professional engineers with knowledge of and experience in the building industry and in building code development. The working group has agreed to prepare this submission from the perspective of protection of the public interest.  A terms of reference for the working group is attached as Appendix 2.

The working group’s answers to the specific questions posed by the joint CCBFC/PTCBS Task Group are provided in Appendix 3.
 
5.0  Definitions

The following terms are defined in the interest of clarifying the ideas contained in this paper.

Core code: Refers to the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes which should be the same for all provinces and territories.

Ancillary code parts:  Refers to the additional requirements developed by individual provinces or territories that are ancillary to the core code.  Ancillary code parts should only address items that are not specifically covered by the core code and should not amend or contravene the core code or the intent of the core code.

National public review:  Refers to the formal period during which both stakeholders and the general public across Canada are allowed to review and comment on any proposed changes/additions to the core code.  The review should be ongoing rather than on a five-year cycle.

6.0   Assumptions

6.1   One Core Code for all of Canada

PEO assumes that the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes will be adopted uniformly across Canada.  The content of this core code should be restricted to fire and life safety, public health, and structural sufficiency issues.  Resources used in the past to develop unique codes for individual jurisdictions should be rerouted to the core code development process.  With a focus on technical aspects, provincial and federal resources could be directed toward the same goal, a state-of-the-art core building code.

The core code document would be made up of parts, which could then be adopted without amendment by provincial and territorial governments.  Where considered necessary, provinces and territories could develop ancillary code parts which would not amend or contravene the core code.

The use of one core code across the country would (a) ensure that minimum health and safety standards are met for all Canadians, (b) encourage consistency and a reduction in errors, (c) reduce costs relating to the development, issuance and enforcement of building regulations, (d) lead to improved efficiency in the building industry, (e) allow the sharing of innovative ideas and solutions across the country, and (f) facilitate harmonization of Canada’s core code with international codes.
Core code development should remain a national function and should be supported by provincial and territorial governments.  All Canadian jurisdictions would thereby be able to take advantage of National Research Council of Canada resources and the pooled resources of provinces and territories.

To obtain support for the adoption of the NBC, stakeholders should have direct access to the core code development process.

6.2   Agreement of PTCBS, Provincial and Territorial Governments and CCBFC

PEO assumes that the PTCBS, provincial/territorial governments and the CCBFC will agree on the need for one core code for the country, and for one core code development process.  After the initial agreements are reached in support of one core code and core code process, there should be no need for additional agreements.

6.3   Structure of CCBFC and PTCBS

PEO assumes that the structure and scope of the CCBFC and PTCBS will be expanded to include issues relating to building, fire and plumbing codes.

7.0  PEO Position on the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes Development and Review Process

7.1  Scope of Core Code

The preface to the National Building Code (NBC) of Canada states that the NBC is essentially "a code of minimum regulations for public health, fire safety and structural sufficiency with respect to the public interest"¹ .  The first step to achieving a core code technical development and review process is to restrict the core code to these issues.

The core code should be restricted to a set of minimum core technical requirements dealing with life safety, fire protection, structural sufficiency and health related issues regarding building construction and maintenance.

Even though the Guide to the Use of the Code² states that "it is not intended to be a textbook on building design", both core code writers and provincial/territorial enforcement authorities attribute mandatory adherence to its provisions and those of its referenced standards as the minimum acceptable standards for building design in Canada.
 
The minimum acceptable level of fire and life safety, structural sufficiency and health standards for buildings should be the same across Canada.  The transition to objective-based codes may make this easier to attain.

The goals and objectives for specific code issues should be identical; however, different acceptable solutions that take into account the economic and geographic realities of different regions can be developed.  As a result, emergency amendments to code requirements at the provincial/territorial level would not be necessary.

¹ National Building Code of Canada 1995, Preface, page ix.
² National Building Code of Canada 1995, A Guide to the Use of the Code, page xiii.

7.1.1  Interpretation of Core Code

In order to ensure a uniform interpretation of the core code, effective liaison among the CCBFC, PTCBS and the provincial/territorial authorities will be necessary.  The Canadian Codes Centre of the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) should be designated as the official body responsible for interpretation of the core code.

7.1.2  Ancillary Code Parts

PEO believes that the provinces and territories will need to address  provincial/territorial-specific issues in ancillary code parts if not addressed in the core code.

Development of ancillary code parts should be generated through various stakeholders at the provincial/territorial level with the provision for their adoption by other provincial or territorial governments, if deemed to be a priority in the affected region.  This will allow provincial and territorial governments to retain the ability to decide unilaterally on requirements which are of a social or regional nature.

7.1.3  Incorporation of Ancillary Code Parts into the Core Code

The scope of the core code should be augmented only when there is clear evidence of strong support among the majority of/all core code users and adopting authorities.

7.2  Single Point of Entry at National Level for all Core Code Changes

PEO believes that the core code development and review process should begin at the national level, and that the point of entry for proposed changes to the core code should be through the CCBFC (see Appendix 4 for PEO model).  Appropriate resources and operational procedures should be put into place at CCBFC to ensure core code issues are dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.

PEO believes that divergence of entry points would lead to confusion.  Accordingly, PEO suggests that all proposals regarding the core code be filtered through the CCBFC.  If the proposal is deemed to be ancillary to the core code, it would be channeled to the appropriate province or territory for review and possible action.

A national entry point would make the process consistent for all provinces and territories, given that some jurisdictions have no code development departments.

7.2.1  CCBFC Technical Committees

CCBFC’s technical committees should be made up of technical representatives, selected for their current technical knowledge, experience and expertise, and for their ability to assess risk to public health and safety as well as the economic impact of proposed code changes.  CCBFC should develop technical committee criteria to reflect these requirements.

The CCBFC/PTCBS Joint Task Group should review the technical committee matrices to ensure that appropriate technical, balanced and unbiased representation is achievable on each committee.  Provincial/territorial authorities and PTCBS should also be involved in the process of nominating and selecting CCBFC technical committee members.

7.2.2  Mandatory Requirements for Written Proposals for Core Code Changes

Proposals for changes to the core code should be required to include an assessment of (a) the impact on fire and life safety, structural sufficiency and health related issues, as well as (b) the economic impact of the proposed change, including a cost-benefit analysis.

7.2.3  PTCBS Involvement prior to National Public Review

All proposed core code change recommendations that have been "deemed to have merit" by the relevant CCBFC technical committee should be distributed to the PTCBS for their information and possible feedback prior to the national public review.

7.2.4  Role of Provincial/Territorial Code Development Committees/Councils

If a national core code is adopted by all provinces and territories and a single core code development process implemented, the role of provincial/territorial building code development councils and committees should be redefined.

Provincial/territorial authorities may determine an ongoing need for code development councils and committees to address specific issues or building types that impact on their jurisdiction but are not of national interest.

If provincial/territorial development councils and committees are retained by provincial/territorial jurisdictions, improved liaison would be necessary to ensure that the core code is not compromised.

PEO believes that core code public review meetings should be held across the country to obtain public/stakeholder comment, and to review any core code change proposals that have been deemed to have merit.  This review process should be ongoing rather than on a five-year cycle.  Past experience has shown that separate provincial/territorial public reviews were redundant and out-of-synch with the national process.

7.3.1  National Public Review Package

There should be one official national public review package.  It should contain:
a) core code change proposals, complete with economic impact documentation,
b) PTCBS’s comments on the proposed changes to core code, if any, and
c) any provincial/territorial proposals to broaden the scope of the core code, i.e. for ancillary code parts to be incorporated into the core code.

7.3.2  Posting of Proposals on Internet

Once a CCBFC technical committee deems that a proposal has merit, the proposal for change to the core code should be distributed to the PTCBS, and soon after posted on the Internet.  Internet publication of proposed changes to the core code may significantly improve the response from stakeholders and the public.  In addition, ease of response via the Internet may result in increased comment from stakeholders and the public.  Submission of new proposals over the Internet should also be permitted.

PEO believes the PTCBS must ratify any core code changes after CCBFC’s final approval.  PTCBS is the body responsible to provincial/territorial governments which ultimately must legislate any new core code changes within their jurisdictions.

7.4.1  Dispute Resolution Mechanism
 
A dispute resolution mechanism should not be necessary if the core code development process is appropriate and has been agreed upon by the PTCBS and CCBFC.  However, a mechanism should be in place to deal with disputes arising among members of the PTCBS or CCBFC.

Adoption of a core code and a nationally coordinated core code development process would have the following benefits:

1. Meet government (both levels) goal for harmonization and elimination of duplication.
 
2. Meet goals and strategies contained in the CCBFC Strategic Plan.
 
3. Create an opportunity for a meaningful partnership involving the provinces and territories and the NRCC.
 
4. Will lead to greater and more meaningful stakeholder participation in the core code development and review process.
 
5. Allow for the "channeling" of issues to the provincial or territorial body if not appropriate for the core code.
 
6. Provide the opportunity for the establishment of a truly national core code.  The core code would be developed and administered by the CCBFC with the provinces and territories agreeing on the scope and content.  Provinces and territories would develop and administer their own ancillary code parts based on regional, social, industrial or economic needs.
 
7. Will lead to greater uniformity (less provincial or territorial change) and consistency.
 
8. Will allow the sharing of innovative ideas and solutions across the country.
 
9. Will facilitate harmonization of Canada’s core code with international codes and thereby support Canada’s international trade policies and agreements.

An initial, formal partnership agreement between each participating province and territory and the CCBFC should be signed.  Some requirements include:

1. Timing:  A coordinated national/provincial/territorial development and review process will require a commitment by each partner to a set timetable.

2.  Process Uniformity: Partners will need to agree on a common development and review process, one that will accommodate the "channeling" of change proposals to either the CCBFC (core code) or the province/territory (ancillary code parts).
 
3.  Adoption:  A commitment by all provincial/territorial governments to adopt the core code without amendments.

1. Development of formal partnership agreements between the various parties to work cooperatively on code development and review.  Eliminate existing parallel processes.

2.  Agreement on a core code that is not amended by provincial or territorial governments.

3.  Use of a single publishing source for the core code by all provinces and territories and, ideally, for the provincial/territorial ancillary code parts.

PEO believes that the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Code should be adopted by all Canadian jurisdictions as the core code for each province and territory.  The core code’s content should be restricted to fire and life safety, public health, and structural sufficiency issues. Where considered necessary, provinces and territories could develop ancillary code parts to address regional or social issues.  The ancillary code parts should only address issues that are not specifically covered by the core code and should not amend or contravene the core code or the intent of the core code.

The use of one core code across the country would (a) ensure that minimum health and safety standards are met for all Canadians, (b) encourage consistency and a reduction in errors, (c) reduce costs relating to the development, issuance and enforcement of building regulations, (d) lead to improved efficiency in the building industry, (e) allow the sharing of innovative ideas and solutions across the country, and (f) facilitate harmonization of Canada’s core code with international codes.

PEO believes that the core code development and review process should begin at the national level, and that the point of entry for proposed changes to the core code should be through the CCBFC.  PEO believes that divergence of entry points would lead to confusion, given that some jurisdictions have no code development departments.  A national entry point would make the process consistent for all provinces and territories.

All proposals for core code changes should explicitly deal with public health and safety implications, and provide an economic assessment of the proposed change.

Resources used in the past to develop unique codes for individual jurisdictions should be rerouted to the core code development process.

Core code change proposals should be delegated through CCBFC to its technical committees for assessment.  PEO strongly believes that members of CCBFC technical committees should be selected for their technical knowledge, experience and expertise.  It is imperative that committee members be technically competent, unbiased, and focused first and foremost on public health and safety issues.  In addition, the matrices of each technical committee should be reviewed to ensure that representation is balanced and unbiased.

The involvement of the PTCBS should come at two distinct points in the core code development process.  Once a CCBFC technical committee deems that a proposal for a core code change has merit, the proposal and any supporting documentation should be provided to the PTCBS for its information and possible comment prior to the national public review.  Any PTCBS comments received should be included in the national public review package.  In addition, PEO believes that any core code change that has received CCBFC’s final approval must be ratified by the PTCBS.

In PEO’s opinion, final ratification by the PTCBS is mandatory because it is the body responsible to provincial/territorial governments which ultimately must legislate any new core code requirements within their jurisdictions.

Improved communications between CCBFC and provincial and territorial authorities will be required to ensure (a) uniform interpretation of the core code, and (b) assurance that any provincial/territorial resources directed at the national core code development process are being appropriately utilized.  The Canadian Codes Centre should be designated as the official body responsible for interpretation of the core code.

There should be only one national public review of core code change proposals with the same deadline for all jurisdictions.  Interim reviews through regional meetings and Internet publication of core code change proposals that have been deemed to have merit should be scheduled.  This would allow stakeholders and the public to have access to proposals as soon after the CCBFC’s technical committee assessment as possible.

Initially, a formal partnership agreement between the provincial/territorial and federal authorities (CCBFC) will likely be required to implement a single, national core code development process.

9.0  PEO Recommendations

PEO makes the following recommendations for the consideration of the joint CCBFC and PTCBS Task Group.

Recommendation #1

PEO recommends that one national building, fire and plumbing code for all provinces and territories be adopted.

PEO recommends that the PEO model for a national core code development process (Appendix 4) be adopted.

PEO recommends that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that implementation of any new core code development process coincides with the completion of the objective-based building code which is currently targeted for 2001.

Gina Cody, P.Eng. (Chair)     Rick Mori, P.Eng.
Tony Chow, P.Eng.      Jonathan Rubes, P.Eng.
Demir Delen, P.Eng.      Paul Seager, P.Eng.
Paul Keenan, P.Eng.
 

· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Commissioning work in Buildings (1992)
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing General Review of Construction as Required by the Ontario Building Code (1996)
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Geotechnical Engineering Services (1993)
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Land Development/Redevelopment
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services in Buildings
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Structural Adequacy in Arenas (1995)
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers Providing Structural Engineering Work in Buildings (1995)
 
· Guideline for Professional Engineers – Temporary Works (1993)

Authorization
PEO’s Professional Practice Committee has authorized the re-activation of the Ontario and National Building Codes Working Group to provide input to the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) and the Provincial/Territorial Committee on Building Standards (PTCBS) Joint Task Group on the Code Review and Development Process.  The working group’s name has been changed to the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes Working Group.

PEO intends to publish any final submission of this Working Group on the PEO web site subject to approval by the Professional Practice Committee and the Government Affairs Committee.

Scope of Work
The Working Group’s objectives are to:

1. discuss and prepare a written rationale, justifying PEO’s involvement in the development of building, fire and plumbing codes from the perspective of protecting the public interest;
2. develop commentary on the process models developed by the federal joint task force for development of the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes, based on the questions provided by the joint task force;
3. provide input on other subjects related to the joint task force’s work (i.e. the role of engineering associations in the development of the National Building, Fire and Plumbing Codes).

Membership
The Working Group will comprise up to eight PEO members.  All members must have prior knowledge of and experience with the Ontario and/or National Building Code(s).

Responsibilities
PEO Working Group members represent Professional Engineers Ontario whose mandate is to protect the public health, safety, welfare and the natural environment where engineering principles are involved.  All submissions must be in keeping with this mandate.

Consensus
A consensus among the members of the Working Group on the final draft of any written submission must be reached before it passes through the PEO internal approvals process.  This process will include review of the final draft by the PPC as well as senior PEO staff.

Meetings
The Working Group may meet at PEO headquarters or conduct meetings via teleconference. Out of province members will participate via teleconference.  PEO will provide refreshments at meetings held at PEO offices, and absorb reasonable travel costs incurred by members.
 

Responses to Question #1:

1.0 Acknowledging the constitutional prerogative of the provinces and territories to adopt whatever code they wish and considering differing provincial/territorial issues and priorities, how could a uniform code technical development and review process be achieved?

Issues related to changing social policy should be excluded from the core of the code and be developed as standards with the provision for their adoption by inclusion in the legislation by the elected officials of the provinces and territories if deemed to be a priority in the affected region.

Recognize that while the "Guide to the Use of the Code" states that "it is not intended to be a textbook on building design", both code writers and enforcement authorities attribute mandatory adherence to its provisions and those of its referenced standards as the minimum acceptable standards of building design.

1.1 Designation of provincial/territorial authorities as the point of entry to the code development process?

1.2 Improved liaisons between the CCBFC and provincial/territorial code development councils and committees?

If provincial/territorial development councils and committees are required by the various jurisdictions, improved liaison would be necessary to ensure that the core code is not compromised.

1.3 Improved liaisons between the CCBFC and provincial/territorial code authorities?

1.4 Greater representation of provincial/territorial authorities on the CCBFC committees?

1.5 Earlier involvement of provincial and territorial authorities in the CCBFC code development process?

However, all "deemed to have merit" code change recommendations, accompanied by an economic impact and life safety assessment of the proposed change, should be distributed to the PTCBS for their information and possible feedback prior to the national public review process.

1.6 Joint review of technical changes by provinces and territories prior to wider public review, or separate provincial public reviews funneled into a National review process?

1.7 Inclusion of all provincial/territorial amendments in a national review package?

CCBFC should review provincial/territorial proposals for new ancillary code parts to determine whether they should be considered as part of the core code.

1.8 Greater involvement of provincial and territorial (PTCBS?) in the process of selecting members for the CCBFC and its standing committees?

1.9 CCBFC decisions on code change made subject to a ratification by provincial/territorial authorities such as used by some Canadian Standards Development Organizations?

1.10 A more frequent or continuous process instead of scheduled or periodic public reviews?

Responses to Question #2:

2.0 Considering geographical and economic realities, how could greater participation in a coordinated national/provincial territorial code development and review process be achieved?

2.1 More code development originating at the provincial/territorial level?

Development of ancillary code parts should be generated through various stakeholders at the provincial level, at which point the provinces have an ability to maintain control of those changes which are of a social nature, rather than a technical one which affects the core code requirements.

2.2 More meetings across Canada?

2.3 Enhancement of the present decision-making process used by the CCBFC (broad consensus, public review, balanced matrix, individuals as members)?

2.4   National conferences to discuss/decide code development as occurs in the USA?

2.5 Greater use of the Internet?

 Submitting new proposals should be permitted over the Internet.

Responses to Question #3:

3.0 How should the process deal with the possibility of contradictory policy and technical advice from stakeholder groups?

3.1  Require stakeholder groups to refer issues to the Provincial/Territorial Committee on Building Standards (PTCBS) first?

3.2 Create partnership agreements with provincial/territorial decision-making authorities specifying to whom the process will refer policy issues?

3.3 Create liaison agreements between the process and stakeholder groups, such as the Canadian Council of Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (CCFM/FC), the Canadian Advisory Council on Plumbing (CACP) and the Federal /Provincial/Territorial Subcommittee on Building Codes and Housing?

3.4 Establishing a dispute resolution mechanism?

A mechanism should be in place, however,  to deal with internal disputes arising among members of the PTCBS or CCBFC.

Responses to Question #4:

4.0 Are there characteristics of model building, plumbing and fire codes that need to be accounted for in a code development process?

4.1 Restrict the model building, plumbing and fire codes to a set of core minimum requirements and rely on provinces and territories to develop provisions for issues that do not have widespread application?

4.2 Base the model codes, to the greatest extent possible, on technical correctness only?

4.3 Give due consideration to cost impact?

4.4 Increase the scopes of the model codes only when there is strong evidence of wide support in the code-affected community and among adopting authorities?

In addition, the  provinces/territories are able to develop ancillary code parts on issues that are relevant in their regions.

Return to the Cover Letter

Return to the Briefs and Submissions List
Return to PEO in the News
Return to PEO Home Page