If the wish is for more…

If the wish is for more transparency, efficiency, and streamlining of the process, introducing yet another administrative body into the Building Code review and implementation process is a serious mistake. To those of us who work in the construction industry and understand it well, the building code process and the associated legislation is already more complex than it probably needs to be, and it only keeps getting more complicated.
In a grossly oversimplified nutshell of this issue, there are typically five parties involved in any process that requires the Building Code to be applied:
1. The Investor - The investor typically DOES NOT care about the Building Code, its requirements, or implementation. Sure, they will pay for everything that must be implemented in their new building, but the motivation is not compliance with the law. In the eyes of the investor, the Building Code and its requirements are a necessary expense and an obstacle to be overcome in their pursuit to complete the building and start seeing returns on their financial investments.
2. The Design Professional - The architect/engineer typically DOES care about the Building Code and its implementation. In addition to it being a decent benchmark for good design practices, complying with the Building Code requirements also protects the professional against liability.
3. The Building Official - The municipally employed building official typically DOES care about the Building Code and its implementation; it is the very mandate of their existence in the first place. They are expressly trained and charged with the task of ensuring code compliance in both design and construction, and feel exposed to legal and personal ramifications if they don't perform their duties properly. When interpreting ambiguously worded code paragraphs, most building officials are highly predisposed to err on the side of caution.
4. The Constructor - the constructor/contractor, on average, is somewhat neutral when it comes to caring about the Building Code. Outside of the specific requirements they need to know in order to complete their work, for the most part they follow the instructions provided by 2. and 3. above. There is a possible exception to that if they happen to also be the investor (e.g. a developer), which could complicate things.
5. The Occupant - Like the investor (and sometimes they are, in fact, the same party), the occupant also typically DOES NOT care about the Building Code. Of course, they enjoy the benefits of code compliance through overall safety and comfort of the spaces they inhabit, but they do not concern themselves too much with whether those spaces have been designed or constructed to comply. The occupant is happy to inhabit the non-complying space for years or even decades, again as long as they enjoy a financial benefit of doing so, unless and until there is an accident due to the non-complying condition, in which case the finger of blame needs to be pointed at someone for legal action, damages, and reparations. Those someones, of course, are 2. and 3. as described above.
Errors and omissions in design and construction are one thing, and there are already mechanisms in place to remedy those effectively. However, it should be recognized that of the five parties identified above, the two parties that don't care about the building code are also the two parties that hold the investment capital with which they pay the two parties that do care. This is not a problem if all parties recognize their limitations and everyone is a team player, but in the current climate of the "New Golden Rule" (i.e. "he with the gold makes them rules"), the parties that do care can get directly or indirectly pressured into compromising their own integrity. Much more often, however, the investor/owner/occupant simply looks for ways to circumnavigate the designer's and/or building official's involvement, seeing it as "just an extra cost to what they want to do." This happens more often than anyone is perhaps willing to admit, especially when it comes to smaller residential projects that would normally fall under Part 9, Division B of the Building Code (the "renovate and flip as homeowner" strategy is, unfortunately, all too familiar to just about everyone in the industry).
Therefore, introducing yet another governmental administrative body to police and overload with extra work those who already have a vested interest in complying with the code requirements is not going to result in streamlining and efficiency, it will only add to bureaucracy and additional costs, and will further encumber an already difficult, complex, and time-consuming process.
Harsher penalties for non-compliance should certainly be implemented, but that can be done by modifying the current process/legislation. Such penalties should be levied primarily on the property owners/investors, not the design professionals. The owner would, in turn, have the option of recovering the cost of the fine from the professional's insurance, if it is found that the professional is indeed at fault for the non-complying condition.
An example to consider of what could be done much more effectively with a lot less effort: as a condition for the sale of every piece of real estate, make it mandatory for a building official to "audit" the property against the last set of permit application drawings submitted to the municipal authorities. If everything is as it should be, the owner/seller pays a couple of hundred dollars for the auditing fee and gets a green light to proceed with the sale. However, if there have been unauthorized changes made to the building that haven't been reviewed and approved by the planning department, the municipality issues a hefty fine to the owner (say, $25,000, or some percentage of the property's estimated value) and a work order to have the building put back the way it was last approved, while in the meantime the property gets red flagged with the Real Estate Board and the banks, so that it can't be sold until declared compliant again. Implementing such a measure would make the owner/investor care much more about the building code compliance, be much more willing to pay for the design and construction to be done correctly, and would result in an added benefit of ensuring that future buyers would have their due peace of mind when making one of the largest investments of their life.