×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception
2

Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)

I have been working on how to manage this change, and thought I would share.

Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception
http://www.peo.on.ca/Committees/RIETF/RIETF.html

I hope this link works

Cheers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

sorry, but it looks to me to be a solution looking for a problem, or perhaps, Ontario is so strapped for revenue, they decided to gouge all the exempt engineers. The other outcome of this would be that the PE board, or whatever, would need to grow by a factor of 10 or so, to provide sufficient "oversight" over so many additional PEs.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Gymmeh,

It works. I tried your DO I NEED A LICENCE test and I answered Yes, Yes and Maybe. I am an engineering technologist, certified by OACETT. There is no mechanical PEng looking over my shoulder.

How much trouble am I in?

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
Well,

I have ran across some of the politics of it, but have mostly avoided just skimmed thru.

Right now i am trying to figure the requirements for my company and suppliers for our client. Since the suppliers are in the US, the designs are US, but the facility is not in the US.

Should be very interesting.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
drawoh,

still trying to figure out if i am going to be in trouble, before I can figure out if your in trouble! Watch out for them Mounties!

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Gymmeh,

This is Ontario, and not the Mounties department. I think it is the OPP we need to watch for.

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

I am poking around the website, looking for more information. This piece was published in OACETT's January/February 2012 magazine.

Quote:


[Bill 68, Open for Business Act, 2010] changed the Professional Engineers Act to repeal the licence exception that has allowed non-engineers to design and analyze production machinery or equipment for use in their employer’s facilities making products for the employer. This exception, commonly referred to as the industrial exception, was in force only in Ontario.

This implies that the industrial exemption existed only in Ontario, Canada. Is this true?

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Quote (drawoh)

This implies that the industrial exemption existed only in Ontario, Canada. Is this true?

Quebec does not have an industrial exemption, but exempt some workers from the restriction law. The part about the skilled workman confuses me because the way I interpret it, it could include anyone. I did not find a definition of "skilled workman" (but I cannot say that I looked very hard)

Quote (Engineers Act (Quebec))


2. Works of the kinds hereinafter described constitute the field of practice of an engineer:

...
(i) industrial work or equipment involving public or employee safety.

5. Nothing in this Act shall:

...
(h) restrict the normal practice of his art or trade by a mere artisan or skilled workman;

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

The industrial exemption in Ontario was written narrowly but not enforced vigorously as written. It applied ONLY to people practicing engineering related to their employers' means of production, i.e. viewing employees as somehow more willing to accept injury arising from incompetent engineering than members of the general public. In practice, even then, it only applied to engineering not regulated by other Acts (i.e. not requiring a prestart health and safety inspection, not impacting OSHA, not impacting any of the 5 areas of the TSSA Act etc.)

Firms doing engineering under the assumption that there was a broad industrial exemption similar to what exists in many US states were in violation of the Act already. Are they at more risk of enforcement action now? I don't see fees doubling any time soon to pay for enforcement inspectors, nor do I see P.Eng.s lining up to report on customers or their employers for violating the Act, so I doubt it.

No OPP involved- the Act is a civil rather than criminal matter- the cops won't be involved.

Drawoh: a CET can get a limited license from PEO to practice professional engineering in their area of expertise. That's been true for over 10 years.

Firms having a C of A can use any monkeys they choose to do whatever engineering they like, as long as they have one signatory patsy P.Eng. willing to sign off on the work. There is no limit on "span of control"- one patsy can be "responsible" for 1000 non-licensed cubicle stuffers. Worse still, that signatory doesn't even need to be an employee of the firm holding the C of A. There's a term for this type of person- a "rent-a-stamp". They're taking a risk of discipline action if anything goes wrong, but the C of A fee is so minimal that some firms are literally obtaining a C of A merely to be permitted to use the word "engineering" in their company name so they sound sophisticated.

Do I see lots of firms lining up for new C of A applications? Sure. It's relatively cheap and easy.

There are plans to reform the C of A, some of which are in progress, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it is truly reformed any time soon. They've been talking about reforming the C of A (putting in place practice inspections, limiting span of control for signatories, requiring a list/register of signatories, and having fees proportional to the size of the engineering department rather than the same fee for a sole proprietor engineer as for a major multinational engineering firm) for at least 15 years. That the C of A acts as a secondary license for any licensee practicing in their own name appears not to bother anyone.



RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
molten,

Thanks that clears up the C of A thing for. That is kinda what I thought. Its odd, because in NY you need a PE in house to have the Engineering in your company name.

Gymmeh

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

I think that the PEO over-reached. If you design, build, manufacture, and sell a stereo or a PC, is having a PE seal the schematics going to make anything safer? The answer is no, because being a PE for electronics does not make you qualified to do safety assessments. That's what organizations like UL are for; since their livelihoods are solely geared towards safety assessments.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Quote (moltenmetal)

...

Drawoh: a CET can get a limited license from PEO to practice professional engineering in their area of expertise. That's been true for over 10 years.

Thanks.

I have been following OACETT's Licensed Engineering Technologist program for a while now. Most literature about LETs seems to be about brownfields, rather than the mechanical design that I do.

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
IRStuff,

The way it reads to me, its there concern is not over the product but the process. More specifically HAZOP, or Hazard assessment of the production line. I would assume this is also concerning the bi-products realized into the atmosphere.

Chemicals being pumped into the atmosphere are a real pain in the States. Buy the times people have been exposed enough to have symptoms, testing complete, legal action is taken, often large numbers of people have been effected, often with cancers or something else which is really hard to prove. Typically the "public" or the employees are already dead before any action is taken.

I can think of one factory right up the street, where there is plenty of conclusive evidence against them pumping 300 times the legal limit of Benzine into the air. The legal system is slow when its against a large "corporate shield", so they are still doing it, while the case is in court.

If there was a industrial PE requirement, the PE self regulating system could step in and put a stop to it. (i.e. take action against the PE responsible) Putting the company in a position, where a PE that will say, this is not to code, we must change it, or I will loose my license.

Again, thats how it reads to me, but I am not 100% sure.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

" the PE self regulating system could step in and put a stop to it. (i.e. take action against the PE responsible) Putting the company in a position, where a PE that will say, this is not to code, we must change it, or I will loose my license.

That's assuming that the PE signs off or seals something. If it's purchased process equipment, there wouldn't necessarily be anything to sign or seal.

"Chemicals being pumped into the atmosphere are a real pain in the States."

And all the reductions that have occurred re. VOCs, smog, ground water contamination have all be done WITHOUT repealing the industrial exemption in California.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

In California and in many other places, the engineering profession is regulated by the employers, which means it's de-facto regulated by the insurance industry and the civil courts.

Those environmental achievements touted for California all happened long after the initial harm took place- and some swung way too far back in the other direction (witness the cancer warning labels I got on some plywood packaging sent to me from California recently). All resulted from government regulation and enforcement PLUS punitive costs arising from civil litigation.

In Ontario, we're at least trying to prevent harm from incompetent engineering by eliminating it in the first place, rather than merely compensating the victims afterward. We too have the environmental regs and the civil courts- but there is far less opportunistic suing going on, because you cannot hire a lawyer on contingency here, and only recently were class action suits permitted.

Different approaches to solving the same problem. Both fraught with its own host of problems.

The heavier regulatory approach we have in Canada is what you get when you build a society on "peace, order and good government" (Canada) versus "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (USA).

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

I've had some experience in some very hazardous processes and equipment, and I can't even begin to imagine how making everyone PEs would help, unless there's a gigantic stick at the end of this legislation. In many cases, the apparent harm isn't even necessarily evident at the point of initial use, and in many cases, the harm is only apparent after decades, so how is that going to work? In our business, everyone is highly specialized, and we have, only because of contractual obligations, someone specifically tasked to be a safety SME, but even he has to resort to asking the specific disciplines for help on analyses. To impose that sort of FMECA/HAZOP analysis on every single product would add insane amounts of overhead on already expensive development efforts.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
IRstuff,

Hopefully in a year or two when this job is finished I will have a good objective view of which approach it better. This is my first time dealing with Canada.

I am also torn about the SI system vs US Customary... after working in both I really dislike the US Customary system but, right now there are a number of people (~20 for this job) at my company employed because we are specializing in technology built in the USA that needs to be fitted into a system built in metric. Talk about pointless overhead, but it employs a lot of engineers, me being one of them.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

GregLocock,

According to a link at the bottom of the page, the PEO is pissed off. Who'd have thunk it?

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

It's a sad day for public protection and for Ontario's engineers, for sure. We're the only province in Canada with an industrial exemption. Thanks to the business lobby and a provincial government with no backbone, now we're stuck with it.

The exemption applies only to engineering done for an employer on their means of production by their employees, i.e. design work done by a millwright or an electrician on their own employer's production line, plant etc. However, from an enforcement perspective, it is treated as if it were the same general exemption for engineering done in industry (rather than for the general public) that exists in many US states.

For some reason, the Ontario government continue to think that an employee is more willing to be injured by incompetent engineering work done on their employer's production equipment than any other member of the general public. Of course they also assume that the consequences of the incompetent engineering won't be felt beyond the plant gate. As a chemical engineer, the fact that my mistakes may have consequences well beyond the plant gate is never lost on me.

Licensing engineers may not be 100% effective at ensuring that all engineering work done is done competently. One thing is certain, though: it is more effective at that sort of protection than allowing employers to be the sole judge of an engineer's competence.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

(OP)
I just got the news yesterday, and thought to check back here.

I typically side on the best interest of society...less on the side of corporations.

Here is a nice local example, that they finally resolved. In this case the locals pushed the government to go after the company, typically the Gov't isn't willing and or able to do so. I firmly believed that if you have someone assigned responsibility for something like this (i.e. someones head will roll) you would not find this happening as much. This case is an exception but in most cases managers are able to hide behind the corporate shield and there is only a fine so there is little or no incentive for people the act in the best interest of society.

http://www.epa.gov/region2/capp/TCC/index.html

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...

needless to say i support moltenmetal.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

That's bit a of a stretch, I think Are there even engineers at this facility that would fall under the exclusion? There may be people who are called engineers working there, but are they? And if there were no exclusion, wouldn't they simply be named something else? Whoever did the actual engineering is probably long gone or retired or was never an employee. By all accounts, the design is not at fault; it appears to be a confluence of running the system beyond its rated limits to increase production and allowing emissions of hazardous gases. Seems to me that all of the people involved are not engineers, and even with no exemption, it's not obvious that there would any PEs on the premise.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Quote (IRstuff)


That's bit a of a stretch, I think Are there even engineers at this facility that would fall under the exclusion?

Would there have been professional engineers available in 1917 when the plant was built?

Not surprisingly, I am not a lawyer, but I believer the operative word here is mischief. Something of yours gets loose and causes damage, and you are legally responsible.

How many industrial accidents in Ontario are caused by unlicensed "engineers"? This is kind of relevant here.

--
JHG

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

I don't really see the relevance. In theory, if there was a PE on site in charge of the plant design, the PE could have whistle blown on the plant and then he would either be fired or forced to quit. The plant would likely still continue polluting until the EPA finally could be bothered to do something about it. It's very easy for management to over rule a PE and it's also very easy for the authorities to ignore complains about bad practices.

There are laws in Canada that can hold people in charge criminally liable if someone is injured in their facility due to neglect. I'm not sure if this extends to people outside the facility injured due to something being released by into the air or water by the facility but it might.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

"I'm not sure if this extends to people outside the facility injured due to something being released by into the air or water by the facility but it might."

There's a long pole in the process of determining cause and effect for industrial pollution, as compared to an out-and-out building collapse or somesuch.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Yes, it's always difficult to determine cause and effect in any situation where it's not a simple case of direct injury. No machine guard allowed a hand to be crushed is much simpler to deal with than allowing exposure to a chemical caused cancer is to deal with. Knowing this doesn't answer if management at a plant could be held criminally responsible for the second situation happening to the general public around the plant.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

Quote:

Yes, it's always difficult to determine cause and effect in any situation where it's not a simple case of direct injury.

But that's what we have federal, state and local codes for. If they say "keep emissions or exposure below a certain level", its the job of the engineer designing the process to comply. Industry standards may be in place to cover these situations as well, so absent explicit laws or regulations, best practices would be compliance with these.

When I design electrical installations, there are rules and standards for touch and step potential, arc flash incident energy, etc. I don't have to re-think whether a certain condition may or may not be dangerous. I just design to these codes as a minimum.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

I think you completely missed the point of my posts. My point was that it doesn't matter if a licensed engineer is involved or not if said engineer is ignored when he whistle blows. Having laws that hold management criminally responsible when they knowingly put lives at risk helps.

RE: Professional Engineers Ontario: Removal of Industrial Exception

"after reviewing all the Hansards between 1983 to 1984, unfortunately, no clear rationale can be found for introducing the industrial exception."

Simply to compensate unregulated engineering professionals less.


"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." L. da Vinci
- Gian

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources