14 ms·

BC Supreme Court bars man from calling himself an 'engineer'

72 points by whycome 3y ago

jksmith 3y ago
Would you not be able to access the domain name "engineer.com" in Alberta if bill is passed?
hiatus 3y ago
From the article, "software engineer" is exempt but the plain "engineer" is not. They should just settle on "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer" like "registered nurse". edit: the term "software engineer" indeed is not exempt but an attempt to exempt it is part of Alberta legislation that has been tabled
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Why should they settle for lesser protection of the word engineer when they're winning their legal battles to protect the word engineer itself?
  - wand3r 3y ago
    I'm not sure I'd base the nomenclature of society around whether or not The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C can win a lower court legal argument. It's also quite absurd in America where Sam Altman and Elon Musk personally coded tech companies (zip2, loopt) but now are derisively called businessmen and non-technical. Clearly "engineer" has a broad general meaning accepted by society which is clearly more broad than an association can gatekeep.
    - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
      The intent at least in Canada is that "engineer" should be as guarded as "veterinarian" or "lawyer" or other titles which tend to strictly imply a registered profession. This isn't novel but the status quo, effectively, and until "software engineer" started showing up everywhere the professional engineer associations were pretty consistently successfully defending their exclusivity. I don't think "engineer" has a broad general meaning any more than "veterinarian" in the context of professions. I do think that "software engineer" does have broad general meaning, however.
      - wand3r 3y ago
        Sure but he has a university degree in engineering and was a titled hardware engineer for 9 years. To me, it's kind of like not being able to call yourself a network engineer or sysadmin because your CompTIA certificate expired.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
        From what I can tell, "engineer", as used for denoting someone has been certified in something, is a somewhat recent 20th century trend. Prior to that, engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention. So it would seem this ruling goes against historical usage.
        fl7305 3y ago
        > engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention. Umm, no. It is true that train drivers were called "engineers" because they operated an engine. But the title "engineer" goes back much further than that. It comes from "military engineer", where "engine"/"engineer" meant "machine" or "ingenious". Military engineers have been around for a very long time. Around the time when the industrial revolution started, people who worked with non-military engineering started to be called "civil engineers". They mostly worked on building roads and bridges, which is where today's "civil engineer" comes from. But in countries like Sweden, "civil engineer" (civilingenjör) has remained a title for all engineers, not just road/bridge-builders. > having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention Not that recent, higher engineering education started in the 1700s in Europe.
      - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        Seems kind of quixotic for a country of 38 million people to try to maintain a different definition of a common word than the other 400 million native English speakers and >1 billion non-native speakers in the world.
- taneq 3y ago
  Pretty sure the equivalent in Australia is "Chartered Engineer." I knew a guy who spent ages preparing to qualify as a chartered engineer, and then promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise. That wasn't a great workplace (I quit around the same time) and there was other stuff going on but still... way to inspire the troops.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Why would they have to give him a raise? I mean, if they’re willing to fire him, they’d presumably be okay with him quitting.
    - ta988 3y ago
      In some places salaries have to be raised legally because your title is what fixes the minimum.
  - gavinray 3y ago
    In Australia, you have laws that force employers to pay you a minimum wage based on your recognized certifications/credentials? Wild. That's pretty fortunate for employed people (IE, you have a tangible and well-defined path to a specific salary number) but sucks for employers, lol.
    - gunapologist99 3y ago
      >> promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise Not so great for the people, too... harder to get a job instead of just letting the new standard engineer go to the highest bidder. They might as well make it very hard to fire him to fix that problem, and then they'd could go full circle and be in France: it's so hard for employers to fire you that they never want to take a chance on you in the first place, and then they want to pay you less because you might turn out to be a bad hire. At least you get endless vacations :) Or, just make it easy to hire and fire.. better for everyone.
      - 3y ago
- taysix 3y ago
  For anyone that didn't read the article but reads this: it's only in Alberta and it's tabled legislation. Hasn't passed yet.
  - fl7305 3y ago
    > it's tabled legislation Is it "tabled" as in "stick in a drawer and forget about it", or "tabled" as in "next on the agenda"?
    - hluska 3y ago
      Bill 7 received royal assent in November but Apega has launched an appeal on a ruling by a court.
    - _6ywn 3y ago
      The definition of tabled used is "next on the agenda" (aka definition 1b instead of 1a for the verb at Merriam Webster [1]). Generally, articles about Canada, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries use the 1b definition, whereas articles about the United States typically use the 1a definition. I can't recall any article about Canadian news in particular, which uses the 1a definition for "tabled." [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table
      - fl7305 3y ago
        Thanks. I know the difference between the UK and the US, but wasn't sure about Canada, and above all where the person writing it was from.
    - kmanraj 3y ago
      Canada uses the verb "to table" to mean to place on the agenda, which is the opposite of how it's used in the US, where it means to remove from consideration indefinitely.
      - fl7305 3y ago
- vasco 3y ago
  This is absolutely ridiculous. If I were him I'd start calling myself "trueengineer", designate it a new word and go to court however many times it'd take with ever more trolling variations every time I'd lose. Engyneer, an-gineer, did-everything-except-pay-the-engineering-cartel, guy-that-does-engineering-work, (not)engineer... I think I can do this all day.
  - wjnc 3y ago
    It is pretty much how it works with controllers, accountants, lawyers, professor, actuaries and notaries. The local varieties and rules may differ, but most of them have entry requirements and a professional organization that is allowed to create the exams, administer judgement over peers, hand out titles and withdraw titles. Where I’m from I can call myself an actuary, but not a lawyer, could’ve called myself professor when a child but not anymore since they’ve changed the rules. These are for better or worse, guilds. Guilds give a certain air of quality and come at the cost of peers restricting markets thus raising prices, raising their income and lowering that of all that are obliged to purchase their services. I do like my investments in firms to come with an audited yearly report with some kind of guarantee against malfeasance. I like my notary to know the tax and heritage laws. But I still let my plumber, electrician, car mechanic and gardener do their work without guilds. (Although my car mechanic is part of a chain which offers some semblance of a guild.) When I was younger Milton Freeman was my hero. He was very vocally against these guilds. The market would solve it all. I think it would, but it’s quite probable that the cost for guarantees and insurance would make the average consumer worse off than this strange remainder of the Middle Ages. This is institutional economics and sociology in action right in front of you.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Some of those are better examples than others. Someone who works as an accountant can probably call themselves an accountant--they just can't call themselves a CPA if they aren't one and may need a CPA to sign off on their work. A notary is someone with a stamp issued by the state. I'm not even sure what defines someone being a professor; they teach at a school of higher ed? There's certainly no legal requirement they have a PhD. But to your broader point, there's various licensing/guilds--some of which is stricter than others. For the most part, engineering is pretty loose which the exception of branches that deal a lot with regulators in particular, like civil engineering.
- nullhole 3y ago
  No, 'software engineer' is not exempt. The article says "Engineer is a protected title in certain contexts in B.C.", and links to the association page, which has this: Software and computer engineering have been designated as disciplines of professional engineering since 1999 and 1998, respectively, and are currently listed as disciplines of professional engineering under the Regulation. Non-registrants are prohibited from using titles like “Software Engineer” or other high-technology-related engineering titles such as “Firmware Engineer”, “Hardware Engineer”, “Data Engineer” because they imply that the individual using them is a registrant and that they are authorized to practice the professions of software or computer engineering in BC. We do, however, recognize that not all software development constitutes software engineering. In some cases, individuals mistakenly use a title like “Software Engineer” when they are not actually engaged in any engineering work. Individuals may have roles more appropriately characterized as a “developer”, “designer”, or “programmer". For more information on software engineering and for help determining whether work constitutes software engineering requiring registration with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, please see our software engineering applicant webpage. https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Practice-or-Title/Frequently-Asked-Questions https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Pract... Edit: added missing word
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Are you quoting laws, or the policy of a private organization? It looks like the latter.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      That private organization is the one that licenses "engineers" in BC. The entire Canadian regulatory system is crazy anachronistic with a bunch of legacy colonial and British cruft. It's like the worst parts of American federalism were mixed with the worst parts of British centralization.
    - abe_m 3y ago
      Engineering societies in Canada are not really private. They are considered self-regulating professions, where the society has an official role regulating their profession. Each of the provinces have enabling legislation that authorizes these societies to create binding regulation within the bounds of the legislation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mpalmer 3y ago
It seems a whole lot of confusion and grief could be avoided by making this about a more specific official certification/title rather than the co-opting of the single word.
subwrmodblocker 3y ago
[dead]
denton-scratch 3y ago
I have long disapproved of the job-title inflation which has led to ordinary programmers (like me) to be called "systems analysts", "software engineers", "architects". But banning someone from referring to themselves as an engineer seems like banning a woodworker from referring to themselves as a "cabinet maker", because they aren't a member of the International Society of Professional Cabinet Makers. The best word for someone who does engineering is "engineer". By restricting the use of the term to members of some professional society that charges annual fees for membership and exams, this looks like private law. At most, the judgement should have restrained this guy from calling himself a "professional engineer", which arguably might have violated the trademark of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. But that's not what he called himself.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  Do you think someone that hasn't gone to medical school should be able to tell people they're a doctor?
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Yes. We already have laws for fraud. Calling yourself doctor is one thing, holding yourself out as a licensed medical professional is another.
    - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
      And if a non licensed medical professional told people they were a doctor for political capital, should that be allowed? I have an engineering degree but I don't claim to be an engineer, that's a protected term in Canada.
      - devilbunny 3y ago
        Anyone with any doctorate can call themselves Dr X. Even in healthcare. The question to ask is, are you a physician? That is a legally protected term.
dubcanada 3y ago
I think this article is missing something. There is no way a engineering board has time to scrap every website and every person and see if they call themselves an engineer or not. He probably said or did something to bring in some eyes. I obviously have no idea what that is or was, but his website does have some interesting science on it. Perhaps the engineering board does not appreciate having someone with "engineering" degrees go around denying climate change? The title is there to indicate a level of professionalism. Same with doctor, nurse, financial planner, etc. If you go around calling yourself a doctor while screaming about vaccines containing micro chips they'll probably do something about it. If that is right or not, I suppose doesn't really matter as the title provider wrote the rules.
- yostrovs 3y ago
  Is climate change an engineering field? Is a professional society of engineers supposed to regulate speech about topics unrelated to it? Do you not find this disturbing?
  - dubcanada 3y ago
    I find the whole thing very silly. But this is entirely 1 side of a story. And I don’t know any context. I doubt this story covers everything. This my suspicious that parts are missing that maybe answer the question. If this is in fact the entire story. Then yes I do find it disturbing. But Canada is a giant nanny state so it’s not really shocking.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Literally the second paragraph states he's been a federal politician, and the fourth says he presented himself as an engineer for the purposes of campaigning... when you say "the article" did you really mean "the title"?
  - dubcanada 3y ago
    No I am just saying this is one side of a story. Perhaps something is missing… perhaps not. But I have a hard time believing this story as it is.
ixtli 3y ago
To say nothing about BC politics I do wish we had some sort of licensure in the public interest for software engineering in the US. It has just as much ethical implication as architecture or being a lawyer.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  > It has just as much ethical implication as architecture or being a lawyer. In what ways?
phkahler 3y ago
I know people who put the P.E. on their business cards in the US. Most of them are closer to civil engineering or mechanical. I know one EE who is also a PE. I've never met a software focused person with a PE. In fact I'm not sure a CS curriculum prepares you for the PE test.
- pylua 3y ago
  There are so many frameworks, systems, and products I’m not sure you can have a broad certification to be able to call yourself a licensed professional in any reasonable sense. I became an engineer in training for electrical engineering but decided to pursue a software career as I enjoyed it more and it was more lucrative. Not too mention that whatever you build has so many dependencies that would all have to fall under some category of licensed or industrial grade just to be used. Besides move fast and break things with venture capital is not aligned with the risks that a licensed professional would have.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Isn’t that also true of engineering in the physical world? I wouldn’t have any problem with there being a licensing body for software engineers. This would encompass safety-critical areas like automotive and aeronautical software systems, military systems, etc. I don’t feel there is a need for your generic CRUD app developer to be an engineer. And there’s nothing wrong with being “just” a developer.
- minsight 3y ago
  I studied computer engineering. It's not a CS curriculum and it prepares you for the PE test. They also drill into your head that you can only refer to your self professionally as an engineer in Canada if you pass your engineering practice exams. Just to illustrate the difference between a computer engineering workload and a CS workload, I generally had 40 hours of classes, tutorials and lectures per week while my CS friends had about 24.
  - Jotra7 3y ago
kstenerud 3y ago
The exact wording of the law prohibits "Uses any other name, title, or description in a manner implying that they are a registrant of Engineers and Geoscientists BC, associated with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, or are authorized to practice the professions of engineering or geoscience in BC." Calling himself an "unregistered engineer" should in theory satisfy the law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
Related, US court thinks otherwise: https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/latest-news/federal-court-ruling-preserves-professional-engineer https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/latest-ne...
- throwup238 3y ago
  From the opinion: > Second, while a state may regulate misleading commercial speech, the term “engineer,” standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading. IANAL but they only ruled on the general use of "engineer" because they found Oregon's statute overly broad on First amendment grounds. "Professional engineer" is still protected, just like it is in Canada. In the US I'm careful to write "engineering professional" as an electrical engineer if I need the phrase.
boringg 3y ago
Professional engineering in Canada means you swore an oath the protect the public, and you went through an accredited 4 year engineering program for specific programs and then passed an exam and have put x amount of years of practical experience. We should absolutely have that level of accreditation for disciplines where public safety is incredibly high. For an attempted politicians to use title inflation to gain publics trust is pretty bad and ruins the value that engineering had developed from holding a high bar for accountability.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  It's not really title inflation when it's the colloquial term though. The issue is the verbiage used in licensure hasn't kept up with modern English. The only difference between a UWaterloo Software Engineer major (licensed engineer) and a UWaterloo Computer Science major is that dumb iron ring. Stay classy Canada.
  - boringg 3y ago
    I would agree there is an issue there with the term being diluted to the point of almost meaningless and how licensure should address that problem. However if they were to use another term, that term would likely get co-opted and diluted as it would be a coveted term (the reason it got diluted in the first place as it had accrued perceived public value and trust). I will take small issue with your second statement - there is a difference between those two programs at Uwaterloo: Mainly comp sci you have a lot of spare time and have a lot of electives and more flexibility in your coursework. Computer engineering you have a specific regime of classes that you need to go through - specifically in physics, circuits, math, chemistry. It the SE program has a higher bar to get into it as a function of its program size being smaller. Both have benefits and drawbacks but I wouldn't call a comp sci major a professional engineer unless they passed the PE. There is a component of physical sciences in the engineering program. My personal take is that professional engineering - has an element of understanding the physical environment and the mathematics that we have used to build civilization (such as physics, math, circuits and chemistry) and you have an oath to public safety above private motivations.
- 3y ago
captnFwiffo 3y ago
[dead]
rasengan 3y ago
What about audio engineers?
captnFwiffo 3y ago
[dead]
0xbadc0de5 3y ago
Play stupid games... This is no different than claiming to be a registered nurse without going through the trouble to become one or baring the responsibility that entails. In this case, "Engineer" is a protected title, like "Registered Nurse", or "Doctor". Although it's typically applied to civil and structural engineers who must accept liability for designs they approve. Think bridges, buildings, etc. Professional Engineers are bound by standards of performance, personal liability and a code of ethics that does not apply to people who simply "graduated from an engineering program." When an engineer designs a bridge and puts their professional seal to it, they're taking personal responsibility for the design's safety. If that bridge fails, they could be held liable for damages. That this guy didn't understand the difference speaks to his level of knowledge and professionalism.
- graphe 3y ago
  None of that is relevant in the article. Engineer isn't protected, and the article even said it isn't protected.
  - 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
    Using Engineer in a way that suggests you are a Professional Engineer is considered misuse. Not understanding the law does not exempt you from it. > On Dec. 1, Brongers granted a permanent injunction preventing Hilderman from calling himself an engineer or any other title in a way that "expresses or implies" he is a registered professional engineer.
    - graphe 3y ago
      In that specific circumstance because of politics, it was added retroactively.
      - 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
        I agree that if he weren't seeking public office, this probably would have gone unnoticed. But those rules are well known among anyone who has taken an engineering education and others have been similarly sanctioned for misuse in the past. The correct course of action upon receiving a misuse / cease and desist for referring to yourself as an engineer is to apologize, issue a statement clarifying your status, and stop referring to yourself as an engineer. For someone seeking public office to assert that the rules don't apply to them... that's a bad look.
LanzVonL 3y ago
[flagged]
MrDresden 3y ago
Just as a data point, in Iceland engineering is an accredited university degree program that requires a MSc in engineering. Same goes for software engineering. So it is in fact illegal to call yourself a software engineer without a MSc in software engineering.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  That is also the case in most parts of Canada (Alberta recently struck this down.) But it's rarely enforced.
causality0 3y ago
it can be misused if the context suggests that someone is a registered professional engineer I'd argue that is rarely the case owing to the fact nobody knows what the fuck a "registered professional engineer" is other than someone with an engineering degree.
phendrenad2 3y ago
Regulating the word "engineer" doesn't accomplish anything, but makes people feel like they're accomplishing something.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  Regulating the term "Engineer" is part of the system of governance and professional regulation. People depend on engineers for life critical infrastructure. The mistakes of Engineers tend to be written in blood.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    Wrong. The mistakes of people who do specific jobs tend to be written in blood. Calling yourself an "engineer" does not automatically magically make you become employed in those specific jobs, nor does preventing someone from being called an "engineer" automatically magically prevent them from becoming employed, literally or de facto, in one such job. Words do not have magical abilities. Preventing people from calling themselves "engineers" is magical thinking. It's like superstition. It only works as part of a broader set of rules, where you mandate that only people with the title of "engineer" can do certain jobs. But, that's pointless and wasteful because you can simply reduce that step and say "only people who pass <this set of criteria to be called an engineer> can do these jobs". The added complication of adding a restricted word is just hot air and political razzle-dazzle for the masses.
    - mikewarot 3y ago
      You don't call yourself an engineer... the State calls you an Engineer once you meet the qualifications and pass the professional licensing Examinations. You don't call yourself a driver... the state qualifies you to do that.
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        I'm not legally barred from putting "driver" on my business card in any jurisdiction on earth, so I'm not sure if that analogy holds up.
motohagiography 3y ago
It raises the question of whether these old guild systems and professional bodies provide value in exchange for governance anymore. Medical doctors have created a monopoly on a lot of things we can train children to do, and drug scheduling for basic treatments means people are using up artificially scarce appointments just to get perscriptions for things they can do themselves in their homes. In engineering, it's romantic to say that professional engineers have accountability, but CAD software, limited liability corporations and E&O insurance policies have replaced the meaning of that almost entirely. Sure, we all like our bridges built by people with integrity, but we know that's not necessarily the case either. In recent years, they have become a para-governance layer used to blackmail members into political alignment and compliance to radical edicts, such as those in psychology and medicine. The backstory on this guy for non-Canadians is that he was a political candidate for a controversial party, and it's pretty clear this case was brought as part of an oppo research ploy to discredit him, which is fairly consistent with how these professional bodies are used these days.
forward1 3y ago
This guy wasted a lot of time and money just to prove to himself that the legal system is unfair and stupid. I have to wonder whether it was worth it.
tacticalturtle 3y ago
Does this mean that the Canadian Armed Forces need to rename their units that construct infrastructure for the rest of the military? https://forces.ca/en/career/combat-engineer/ https://forces.ca/en/career/combat-engineer/ The society mentions the following criteria as possibly infringing: https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Practice-or-Title/Frequently-Asked-Questions https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Pract... “Using “Engineer” in combination with an engineering discipline, in combination with another word related to the profession of engineering, or in combination with any language that expresses or implies the right to practice engineering.” Trying to protect a generic term with a history as long as “engineer” is ridiculous.
- jjeaff 3y ago
  And what about an engineer that drives a train aka railroad engineer? Perhaps that is not common parlance in Canada?
  - abe_m 3y ago
    In Ontario (perhaps other provinces as well), train drivers (engineers), and operating engineers, are allowed to continue using the "engineer" name for their jobs, but not "professional engineer". Those two were well established uses of the word engineer before engineering professionalized and became regulated, so they are essentially grandfathered in. Operating engineers are probably more tightly regulated than professional engineers in Ontario. I'm not sure how the regulation on the train drivers compares to the other two groups of "engineers".
nwah1 3y ago
They did the same thing to a great guy named Charles Marohn in Minnesota. https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-this-engineer-for-calling-himself-an-engineer/ https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-th...
mellosouls 3y ago
This reminds me of the StackExchange question where the manager didn't get the replies they expected when asking how to deal with a registered Engineer who'd been shafted by the company: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/63205/how-can-i-deal-with-troublesome-professional-engineer https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/63205/how-can-...
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Thanks for sharing this gem. I don’t know what’s funnier, than trying to force a P.Eng to sign off on stuff with all the legal liabilities that comes with it, or them not blinking twice when making some kid, who apparently isn’t a P.Eng a principal engineer and not understanding how that’s an issue.
turquoisevar 3y ago
Quite the weird verdict. In the EU and its individual member states titles like this are also protected, but typically those protections are limited to explicit cases where it’s used in conjunction with a name. E.g. “ir. John Smith” or “Anne Smith Eur. Ing.” Using it a random descriptor like in this case is generally fine, with perhaps the exception of specific professions such as doctor (in the medical sense) and lawyer when it’s used to imply you’re allowed to provide medical care and legal aid respectively.
rfdonnelly 3y ago
Reminds me of Mats Järlström who challenged traffic light timing. "The [Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying] fined Mats $500 and said that he could not talk about traffic lights in public until he obtained a state-issued professional-engineer license." https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
tamimio 3y ago
> university degree in engineering but is not licensed as a professional engineer, I think as long as you have a university degree in engineering, then you are entitled to be called an engineer regardless, having a P.Eng title should be an honorable distinction or where it might be required, hence it’s called “professional engineer” not just an engineer as you already claimed that title. Not having an engineering degree and you still call yourself an engineer? Yeah, this is what should be discussed.
incomingpain 3y ago
Man with engineering degree, who does engineering things, can't call himself an engineer because he doesn't pay the government enough money, so says the government. Dear Americans if you're wondering, Canada doesn't have free speech. I suppose Elon Musk recently got under fire for saying this. Oh and the government won't be cracking down on all the other people improperly using the engineer title, like locomotive engineers or you know everyone who has ever engineered something at a makerspace or everyone in STEM. This is political, he's part of a political party which needs suppressing.
cranky908canuck 3y ago
Missing from both the cited news item and the discussion is: As an engineer, you are required to maintain a duty of care that overrides employer/client relationships. As in, even if the boss says "seal it" on an inadequate bridge design, you are legally required to refuse. Key thing is, that seal is required, so (at least in theory) the boss is stuck, since nobody else with a seal will seal it either. Now stuff happens, ultimately the penalty is dismissal from the ranks of the PEng (and likely civil lawsuits), but an engineering license is a matter of entrusting the recipient to create a cost effective solution that does not compromise the safety of third parties. In economic language, this 'internalizes' the cost of failing to build things that will be safe to third parties (eg., the users of the bridge). As near as I can tell, the individual never had that accreditation, so the issue isn't about 'paying tribute', it's about false advertising.

72 points by whycome 3y ago

Would you not be able to access the domain name "engineer.com" in Alberta if bill is passed?

From the article, "software engineer" is exempt but the plain "engineer" is not. They should just settle on "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer" like "registered nurse". edit: the term "software engineer" indeed is not exempt but an attempt to exempt it is part of Alberta legislation that has been tabled

mcpackieh 3y ago
Why should they settle for lesser protection of the word engineer when they're winning their legal battles to protect the word engineer itself?
- wand3r 3y ago
  I'm not sure I'd base the nomenclature of society around whether or not The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C can win a lower court legal argument. It's also quite absurd in America where Sam Altman and Elon Musk personally coded tech companies (zip2, loopt) but now are derisively called businessmen and non-technical. Clearly "engineer" has a broad general meaning accepted by society which is clearly more broad than an association can gatekeep.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    The intent at least in Canada is that "engineer" should be as guarded as "veterinarian" or "lawyer" or other titles which tend to strictly imply a registered profession. This isn't novel but the status quo, effectively, and until "software engineer" started showing up everywhere the professional engineer associations were pretty consistently successfully defending their exclusivity. I don't think "engineer" has a broad general meaning any more than "veterinarian" in the context of professions. I do think that "software engineer" does have broad general meaning, however.
    - wand3r 3y ago
      Sure but he has a university degree in engineering and was a titled hardware engineer for 9 years. To me, it's kind of like not being able to call yourself a network engineer or sysadmin because your CompTIA certificate expired.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
      From what I can tell, "engineer", as used for denoting someone has been certified in something, is a somewhat recent 20th century trend. Prior to that, engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention. So it would seem this ruling goes against historical usage.
      - fl7305 3y ago
        > engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention. Umm, no. It is true that train drivers were called "engineers" because they operated an engine. But the title "engineer" goes back much further than that. It comes from "military engineer", where "engine"/"engineer" meant "machine" or "ingenious". Military engineers have been around for a very long time. Around the time when the industrial revolution started, people who worked with non-military engineering started to be called "civil engineers". They mostly worked on building roads and bridges, which is where today's "civil engineer" comes from. But in countries like Sweden, "civil engineer" (civilingenjör) has remained a title for all engineers, not just road/bridge-builders. > having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention Not that recent, higher engineering education started in the 1700s in Europe.
    - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
      Seems kind of quixotic for a country of 38 million people to try to maintain a different definition of a common word than the other 400 million native English speakers and >1 billion non-native speakers in the world.
taneq 3y ago
Pretty sure the equivalent in Australia is "Chartered Engineer." I knew a guy who spent ages preparing to qualify as a chartered engineer, and then promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise. That wasn't a great workplace (I quit around the same time) and there was other stuff going on but still... way to inspire the troops.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Why would they have to give him a raise? I mean, if they’re willing to fire him, they’d presumably be okay with him quitting.
  - ta988 3y ago
    In some places salaries have to be raised legally because your title is what fixes the minimum.
- gavinray 3y ago
  In Australia, you have laws that force employers to pay you a minimum wage based on your recognized certifications/credentials? Wild. That's pretty fortunate for employed people (IE, you have a tangible and well-defined path to a specific salary number) but sucks for employers, lol.
  - gunapologist99 3y ago
    >> promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise Not so great for the people, too... harder to get a job instead of just letting the new standard engineer go to the highest bidder. They might as well make it very hard to fire him to fix that problem, and then they'd could go full circle and be in France: it's so hard for employers to fire you that they never want to take a chance on you in the first place, and then they want to pay you less because you might turn out to be a bad hire. At least you get endless vacations :) Or, just make it easy to hire and fire.. better for everyone.
    - 3y ago
taysix 3y ago
For anyone that didn't read the article but reads this: it's only in Alberta and it's tabled legislation. Hasn't passed yet.
- fl7305 3y ago
  > it's tabled legislation Is it "tabled" as in "stick in a drawer and forget about it", or "tabled" as in "next on the agenda"?
  - hluska 3y ago
    Bill 7 received royal assent in November but Apega has launched an appeal on a ruling by a court.
  - _6ywn 3y ago
    The definition of tabled used is "next on the agenda" (aka definition 1b instead of 1a for the verb at Merriam Webster [1]). Generally, articles about Canada, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries use the 1b definition, whereas articles about the United States typically use the 1a definition. I can't recall any article about Canadian news in particular, which uses the 1a definition for "tabled." [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/table
    - fl7305 3y ago
      Thanks. I know the difference between the UK and the US, but wasn't sure about Canada, and above all where the person writing it was from.
  - kmanraj 3y ago
    Canada uses the verb "to table" to mean to place on the agenda, which is the opposite of how it's used in the US, where it means to remove from consideration indefinitely.
    - fl7305 3y ago
vasco 3y ago
This is absolutely ridiculous. If I were him I'd start calling myself "trueengineer", designate it a new word and go to court however many times it'd take with ever more trolling variations every time I'd lose. Engyneer, an-gineer, did-everything-except-pay-the-engineering-cartel, guy-that-does-engineering-work, (not)engineer... I think I can do this all day.
- wjnc 3y ago
  It is pretty much how it works with controllers, accountants, lawyers, professor, actuaries and notaries. The local varieties and rules may differ, but most of them have entry requirements and a professional organization that is allowed to create the exams, administer judgement over peers, hand out titles and withdraw titles. Where I’m from I can call myself an actuary, but not a lawyer, could’ve called myself professor when a child but not anymore since they’ve changed the rules. These are for better or worse, guilds. Guilds give a certain air of quality and come at the cost of peers restricting markets thus raising prices, raising their income and lowering that of all that are obliged to purchase their services. I do like my investments in firms to come with an audited yearly report with some kind of guarantee against malfeasance. I like my notary to know the tax and heritage laws. But I still let my plumber, electrician, car mechanic and gardener do their work without guilds. (Although my car mechanic is part of a chain which offers some semblance of a guild.) When I was younger Milton Freeman was my hero. He was very vocally against these guilds. The market would solve it all. I think it would, but it’s quite probable that the cost for guarantees and insurance would make the average consumer worse off than this strange remainder of the Middle Ages. This is institutional economics and sociology in action right in front of you.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Some of those are better examples than others. Someone who works as an accountant can probably call themselves an accountant--they just can't call themselves a CPA if they aren't one and may need a CPA to sign off on their work. A notary is someone with a stamp issued by the state. I'm not even sure what defines someone being a professor; they teach at a school of higher ed? There's certainly no legal requirement they have a PhD. But to your broader point, there's various licensing/guilds--some of which is stricter than others. For the most part, engineering is pretty loose which the exception of branches that deal a lot with regulators in particular, like civil engineering.
nullhole 3y ago
No, 'software engineer' is not exempt. The article says "Engineer is a protected title in certain contexts in B.C.", and links to the association page, which has this: Software and computer engineering have been designated as disciplines of professional engineering since 1999 and 1998, respectively, and are currently listed as disciplines of professional engineering under the Regulation. Non-registrants are prohibited from using titles like “Software Engineer” or other high-technology-related engineering titles such as “Firmware Engineer”, “Hardware Engineer”, “Data Engineer” because they imply that the individual using them is a registrant and that they are authorized to practice the professions of software or computer engineering in BC. We do, however, recognize that not all software development constitutes software engineering. In some cases, individuals mistakenly use a title like “Software Engineer” when they are not actually engaged in any engineering work. Individuals may have roles more appropriately characterized as a “developer”, “designer”, or “programmer". For more information on software engineering and for help determining whether work constitutes software engineering requiring registration with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, please see our software engineering applicant webpage. https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Practice-or-Title/Frequently-Asked-Questions https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Pract... Edit: added missing word
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Are you quoting laws, or the policy of a private organization? It looks like the latter.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    That private organization is the one that licenses "engineers" in BC. The entire Canadian regulatory system is crazy anachronistic with a bunch of legacy colonial and British cruft. It's like the worst parts of American federalism were mixed with the worst parts of British centralization.
  - abe_m 3y ago
    Engineering societies in Canada are not really private. They are considered self-regulating professions, where the society has an official role regulating their profession. Each of the provinces have enabling legislation that authorizes these societies to create binding regulation within the bounds of the legislation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mpalmer 3y ago

It seems a whole lot of confusion and grief could be avoided by making this about a more specific official certification/title rather than the co-opting of the single word.

subwrmodblocker 3y ago

[dead]

denton-scratch 3y ago

I have long disapproved of the job-title inflation which has led to ordinary programmers (like me) to be called "systems analysts", "software engineers", "architects". But banning someone from referring to themselves as an engineer seems like banning a woodworker from referring to themselves as a "cabinet maker", because they aren't a member of the International Society of Professional Cabinet Makers. The best word for someone who does engineering is "engineer". By restricting the use of the term to members of some professional society that charges annual fees for membership and exams, this looks like private law. At most, the judgement should have restrained this guy from calling himself a "professional engineer", which arguably might have violated the trademark of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. But that's not what he called himself.

ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
Do you think someone that hasn't gone to medical school should be able to tell people they're a doctor?
- hiatus 3y ago
  Yes. We already have laws for fraud. Calling yourself doctor is one thing, holding yourself out as a licensed medical professional is another.
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
    And if a non licensed medical professional told people they were a doctor for political capital, should that be allowed? I have an engineering degree but I don't claim to be an engineer, that's a protected term in Canada.
    - devilbunny 3y ago
      Anyone with any doctorate can call themselves Dr X. Even in healthcare. The question to ask is, are you a physician? That is a legally protected term.

dubcanada 3y ago

I think this article is missing something. There is no way a engineering board has time to scrap every website and every person and see if they call themselves an engineer or not. He probably said or did something to bring in some eyes. I obviously have no idea what that is or was, but his website does have some interesting science on it. Perhaps the engineering board does not appreciate having someone with "engineering" degrees go around denying climate change? The title is there to indicate a level of professionalism. Same with doctor, nurse, financial planner, etc. If you go around calling yourself a doctor while screaming about vaccines containing micro chips they'll probably do something about it. If that is right or not, I suppose doesn't really matter as the title provider wrote the rules.

yostrovs 3y ago
Is climate change an engineering field? Is a professional society of engineers supposed to regulate speech about topics unrelated to it? Do you not find this disturbing?
- dubcanada 3y ago
  I find the whole thing very silly. But this is entirely 1 side of a story. And I don’t know any context. I doubt this story covers everything. This my suspicious that parts are missing that maybe answer the question. If this is in fact the entire story. Then yes I do find it disturbing. But Canada is a giant nanny state so it’s not really shocking.
SiempreViernes 3y ago
Literally the second paragraph states he's been a federal politician, and the fourth says he presented himself as an engineer for the purposes of campaigning... when you say "the article" did you really mean "the title"?
- dubcanada 3y ago
  No I am just saying this is one side of a story. Perhaps something is missing… perhaps not. But I have a hard time believing this story as it is.

ixtli 3y ago

To say nothing about BC politics I do wish we had some sort of licensure in the public interest for software engineering in the US. It has just as much ethical implication as architecture or being a lawyer.

InCityDreams 3y ago
> It has just as much ethical implication as architecture or being a lawyer. In what ways?

phkahler 3y ago

I know people who put the P.E. on their business cards in the US. Most of them are closer to civil engineering or mechanical. I know one EE who is also a PE. I've never met a software focused person with a PE. In fact I'm not sure a CS curriculum prepares you for the PE test.

pylua 3y ago
There are so many frameworks, systems, and products I’m not sure you can have a broad certification to be able to call yourself a licensed professional in any reasonable sense. I became an engineer in training for electrical engineering but decided to pursue a software career as I enjoyed it more and it was more lucrative. Not too mention that whatever you build has so many dependencies that would all have to fall under some category of licensed or industrial grade just to be used. Besides move fast and break things with venture capital is not aligned with the risks that a licensed professional would have.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Isn’t that also true of engineering in the physical world? I wouldn’t have any problem with there being a licensing body for software engineers. This would encompass safety-critical areas like automotive and aeronautical software systems, military systems, etc. I don’t feel there is a need for your generic CRUD app developer to be an engineer. And there’s nothing wrong with being “just” a developer.
minsight 3y ago
I studied computer engineering. It's not a CS curriculum and it prepares you for the PE test. They also drill into your head that you can only refer to your self professionally as an engineer in Canada if you pass your engineering practice exams. Just to illustrate the difference between a computer engineering workload and a CS workload, I generally had 40 hours of classes, tutorials and lectures per week while my CS friends had about 24.
- Jotra7 3y ago

kstenerud 3y ago

The exact wording of the law prohibits "Uses any other name, title, or description in a manner implying that they are a registrant of Engineers and Geoscientists BC, associated with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, or are authorized to practice the professions of engineering or geoscience in BC." Calling himself an "unregistered engineer" should in theory satisfy the law.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bdd8f1df777b 3y ago

Related, US court thinks otherwise: https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/latest-news/federal-court-ruling-preserves-professional-engineer https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/latest-ne...

throwup238 3y ago
From the opinion: > Second, while a state may regulate misleading commercial speech, the term “engineer,” standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading. IANAL but they only ruled on the general use of "engineer" because they found Oregon's statute overly broad on First amendment grounds. "Professional engineer" is still protected, just like it is in Canada. In the US I'm careful to write "engineering professional" as an electrical engineer if I need the phrase.

boringg 3y ago

Professional engineering in Canada means you swore an oath the protect the public, and you went through an accredited 4 year engineering program for specific programs and then passed an exam and have put x amount of years of practical experience. We should absolutely have that level of accreditation for disciplines where public safety is incredibly high. For an attempted politicians to use title inflation to gain publics trust is pretty bad and ruins the value that engineering had developed from holding a high bar for accountability.

alephnerd 3y ago
It's not really title inflation when it's the colloquial term though. The issue is the verbiage used in licensure hasn't kept up with modern English. The only difference between a UWaterloo Software Engineer major (licensed engineer) and a UWaterloo Computer Science major is that dumb iron ring. Stay classy Canada.
- boringg 3y ago
  I would agree there is an issue there with the term being diluted to the point of almost meaningless and how licensure should address that problem. However if they were to use another term, that term would likely get co-opted and diluted as it would be a coveted term (the reason it got diluted in the first place as it had accrued perceived public value and trust). I will take small issue with your second statement - there is a difference between those two programs at Uwaterloo: Mainly comp sci you have a lot of spare time and have a lot of electives and more flexibility in your coursework. Computer engineering you have a specific regime of classes that you need to go through - specifically in physics, circuits, math, chemistry. It the SE program has a higher bar to get into it as a function of its program size being smaller. Both have benefits and drawbacks but I wouldn't call a comp sci major a professional engineer unless they passed the PE. There is a component of physical sciences in the engineering program. My personal take is that professional engineering - has an element of understanding the physical environment and the mathematics that we have used to build civilization (such as physics, math, circuits and chemistry) and you have an oath to public safety above private motivations.
3y ago

captnFwiffo 3y ago

[dead]

rasengan 3y ago

What about audio engineers?

captnFwiffo 3y ago

[dead]

0xbadc0de5 3y ago

Play stupid games... This is no different than claiming to be a registered nurse without going through the trouble to become one or baring the responsibility that entails. In this case, "Engineer" is a protected title, like "Registered Nurse", or "Doctor". Although it's typically applied to civil and structural engineers who must accept liability for designs they approve. Think bridges, buildings, etc. Professional Engineers are bound by standards of performance, personal liability and a code of ethics that does not apply to people who simply "graduated from an engineering program." When an engineer designs a bridge and puts their professional seal to it, they're taking personal responsibility for the design's safety. If that bridge fails, they could be held liable for damages. That this guy didn't understand the difference speaks to his level of knowledge and professionalism.

graphe 3y ago
None of that is relevant in the article. Engineer isn't protected, and the article even said it isn't protected.
- 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
  Using Engineer in a way that suggests you are a Professional Engineer is considered misuse. Not understanding the law does not exempt you from it. > On Dec. 1, Brongers granted a permanent injunction preventing Hilderman from calling himself an engineer or any other title in a way that "expresses or implies" he is a registered professional engineer.
  - graphe 3y ago
    In that specific circumstance because of politics, it was added retroactively.
    - 0xbadc0de5 3y ago
      I agree that if he weren't seeking public office, this probably would have gone unnoticed. But those rules are well known among anyone who has taken an engineering education and others have been similarly sanctioned for misuse in the past. The correct course of action upon receiving a misuse / cease and desist for referring to yourself as an engineer is to apologize, issue a statement clarifying your status, and stop referring to yourself as an engineer. For someone seeking public office to assert that the rules don't apply to them... that's a bad look.

LanzVonL 3y ago

[flagged]

MrDresden 3y ago

Just as a data point, in Iceland engineering is an accredited university degree program that requires a MSc in engineering. Same goes for software engineering. So it is in fact illegal to call yourself a software engineer without a MSc in software engineering.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
That is also the case in most parts of Canada (Alberta recently struck this down.) But it's rarely enforced.

causality0 3y ago

it can be misused if the context suggests that someone is a registered professional engineer I'd argue that is rarely the case owing to the fact nobody knows what the fuck a "registered professional engineer" is other than someone with an engineering degree.

phendrenad2 3y ago

Regulating the word "engineer" doesn't accomplish anything, but makes people feel like they're accomplishing something.

mikewarot 3y ago
Regulating the term "Engineer" is part of the system of governance and professional regulation. People depend on engineers for life critical infrastructure. The mistakes of Engineers tend to be written in blood.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  Wrong. The mistakes of people who do specific jobs tend to be written in blood. Calling yourself an "engineer" does not automatically magically make you become employed in those specific jobs, nor does preventing someone from being called an "engineer" automatically magically prevent them from becoming employed, literally or de facto, in one such job. Words do not have magical abilities. Preventing people from calling themselves "engineers" is magical thinking. It's like superstition. It only works as part of a broader set of rules, where you mandate that only people with the title of "engineer" can do certain jobs. But, that's pointless and wasteful because you can simply reduce that step and say "only people who pass <this set of criteria to be called an engineer> can do these jobs". The added complication of adding a restricted word is just hot air and political razzle-dazzle for the masses.
  - mikewarot 3y ago
    You don't call yourself an engineer... the State calls you an Engineer once you meet the qualifications and pass the professional licensing Examinations. You don't call yourself a driver... the state qualifies you to do that.
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      I'm not legally barred from putting "driver" on my business card in any jurisdiction on earth, so I'm not sure if that analogy holds up.

motohagiography 3y ago

It raises the question of whether these old guild systems and professional bodies provide value in exchange for governance anymore. Medical doctors have created a monopoly on a lot of things we can train children to do, and drug scheduling for basic treatments means people are using up artificially scarce appointments just to get perscriptions for things they can do themselves in their homes. In engineering, it's romantic to say that professional engineers have accountability, but CAD software, limited liability corporations and E&O insurance policies have replaced the meaning of that almost entirely. Sure, we all like our bridges built by people with integrity, but we know that's not necessarily the case either. In recent years, they have become a para-governance layer used to blackmail members into political alignment and compliance to radical edicts, such as those in psychology and medicine. The backstory on this guy for non-Canadians is that he was a political candidate for a controversial party, and it's pretty clear this case was brought as part of an oppo research ploy to discredit him, which is fairly consistent with how these professional bodies are used these days.

forward1 3y ago

This guy wasted a lot of time and money just to prove to himself that the legal system is unfair and stupid. I have to wonder whether it was worth it.

tacticalturtle 3y ago

Does this mean that the Canadian Armed Forces need to rename their units that construct infrastructure for the rest of the military? https://forces.ca/en/career/combat-engineer/ https://forces.ca/en/career/combat-engineer/ The society mentions the following criteria as possibly infringing: https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Practice-or-Title/Frequently-Asked-Questions https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Discipline/Unauthorized-Pract... “Using “Engineer” in combination with an engineering discipline, in combination with another word related to the profession of engineering, or in combination with any language that expresses or implies the right to practice engineering.” Trying to protect a generic term with a history as long as “engineer” is ridiculous.

jjeaff 3y ago
And what about an engineer that drives a train aka railroad engineer? Perhaps that is not common parlance in Canada?
- abe_m 3y ago
  In Ontario (perhaps other provinces as well), train drivers (engineers), and operating engineers, are allowed to continue using the "engineer" name for their jobs, but not "professional engineer". Those two were well established uses of the word engineer before engineering professionalized and became regulated, so they are essentially grandfathered in. Operating engineers are probably more tightly regulated than professional engineers in Ontario. I'm not sure how the regulation on the train drivers compares to the other two groups of "engineers".

nwah1 3y ago

They did the same thing to a great guy named Charles Marohn in Minnesota. https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-this-engineer-for-calling-himself-an-engineer/ https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-th...

mellosouls 3y ago

This reminds me of the StackExchange question where the manager didn't get the replies they expected when asking how to deal with a registered Engineer who'd been shafted by the company: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/63205/how-can-i-deal-with-troublesome-professional-engineer https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/63205/how-can-...

turquoisevar 3y ago
Thanks for sharing this gem. I don’t know what’s funnier, than trying to force a P.Eng to sign off on stuff with all the legal liabilities that comes with it, or them not blinking twice when making some kid, who apparently isn’t a P.Eng a principal engineer and not understanding how that’s an issue.

turquoisevar 3y ago

Quite the weird verdict. In the EU and its individual member states titles like this are also protected, but typically those protections are limited to explicit cases where it’s used in conjunction with a name. E.g. “ir. John Smith” or “Anne Smith Eur. Ing.” Using it a random descriptor like in this case is generally fine, with perhaps the exception of specific professions such as doctor (in the medical sense) and lawyer when it’s used to imply you’re allowed to provide medical care and legal aid respectively.

rfdonnelly 3y ago

Reminds me of Mats Järlström who challenged traffic light timing. "The [Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying] fined Mats $500 and said that he could not talk about traffic lights in public until he obtained a state-issued professional-engineer license." https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-light-timing-lawsuit/ https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...

tamimio 3y ago

> university degree in engineering but is not licensed as a professional engineer, I think as long as you have a university degree in engineering, then you are entitled to be called an engineer regardless, having a P.Eng title should be an honorable distinction or where it might be required, hence it’s called “professional engineer” not just an engineer as you already claimed that title. Not having an engineering degree and you still call yourself an engineer? Yeah, this is what should be discussed.

incomingpain 3y ago

Man with engineering degree, who does engineering things, can't call himself an engineer because he doesn't pay the government enough money, so says the government. Dear Americans if you're wondering, Canada doesn't have free speech. I suppose Elon Musk recently got under fire for saying this. Oh and the government won't be cracking down on all the other people improperly using the engineer title, like locomotive engineers or you know everyone who has ever engineered something at a makerspace or everyone in STEM. This is political, he's part of a political party which needs suppressing.

cranky908canuck 3y ago

Missing from both the cited news item and the discussion is: As an engineer, you are required to maintain a duty of care that overrides employer/client relationships. As in, even if the boss says "seal it" on an inadequate bridge design, you are legally required to refuse. Key thing is, that seal is required, so (at least in theory) the boss is stuck, since nobody else with a seal will seal it either. Now stuff happens, ultimately the penalty is dismissal from the ranks of the PEng (and likely civil lawsuits), but an engineering license is a matter of entrusting the recipient to create a cost effective solution that does not compromise the safety of third parties. In economic language, this 'internalizes' the cost of failing to build things that will be safe to third parties (eg., the users of the bridge). As near as I can tell, the individual never had that accreditation, so the issue isn't about 'paying tribute', it's about false advertising.