×
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

Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers
17

Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

(OP)
I read all these forums and find the sharing of ideas extremely helpful and informative, I would like to know about being licienced in northern America.

Is it compulsory?
do you have to take insurance out on yourself to protect against tort of negligance or substandard work, who pick the tab up is it the work or yourself.

Does this accreditation allow you to work anywhere in US?

WHy have it? (advantages/Disadvantages)

Can you work without one?

I read alot about people saying if they discover unethical practices , its thier legal duty to report it or they face expulsion. DOes this happen?

Is there different bodies?

Just to give you a comparison, we dont really have anything of the same idea over here, we have professional bodies like Institute of Engineers, but alot of the time its more a badge than an actual living body  enforcing policy.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

First of all, where is "over here"?

Is it compulsory?
A PE, P.E., PEng, CEng, or whatever you abbreviate is usually not required for private industry.  Government organizations often require an engineer to have a license before certain job duties can be assigned.
So far, liability insurance for engineers is relatively low compared to that of a doctor or lawyer.  I personally haven't priced it yet because I'm still a short time away from sitting for the PE exam (USA-AZ).  Some engineers take out an insurance policy on themselves to make sure they always have enough.  Most PE's that I know won't stamp any company work unless the company is paying for their insurance.

Does this accreditation allow you to work anywhere in US?  Can you work without one?
For the US, each state has its own certification board.  You have to pass each states requirements to be licensed in that state.  Typically, when you get your licensure in one state, you can get licensure in other state through recipricity/committee.  Still a tough process, but better than taking the PE exam 50 times.
You can work without a license in certain fields.  Others require a PE.  The reason to have it is to open doors for those areas that require it as well as show employers and peers that you hold yourself to the high standard of engineer.  www.nspe.org has some great information about professional engineers and their ethics.  So YES, if a licensed PE sees another licensed PE doing something unethical, it is the responsibility of the ethical engineer to report the unethical one.  Much like if you see a student post at eng-tips, you red-flag.  Don't comment, don't make a fuss, just report it and let the governing agency sort it out.

Is [Are] there different bodies?
As stated earlier, in the US, each state has its own licensing board.  Each country outside the US also has their own.  There is not one international society, although each society has many similarities.

--Scott

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Is it compulsory? Generally speaking, yes.  It MIGHT not be compulsory if you work in private industry and only design things "inside the business."  As soon as you offer your services to the public at large, then it is compulsory.

Do you need errors and omissions insurance?  Where I live, yes.  We believe that if you do not have insurance, then you are not fully portecting your client, and that would be unprofessional.  It is my own personal opinion that if you are practicing engineering without insurance, you are MAD.  

Who pays for the insurance?  It doesn't matter.  That is up to you to figure out.  Make sure your boss is paying for it or include it in the cost of doing business with your clients.

Does this accreditation allow you to work anywhere?  No.  You must be licenced in the geographic area where you will be practicing.  

Why have it?  Generally speaking, it is against the law to practice engineering without a licence.  Penalties are substantial.  I wouldn't want a surgeon to operate on me if he had no licence.  I would not want an engineer to design my new building if he had no licence.  

Can you work without one?  Generally speaking, no.  If you are not a licenced engineer, very few people will recognize and respect you as an engineer.

Is it an engineer's duty to report other engineers?  Yes.  When a professional engineer finds evidence of another engineer acting unprofessionally (negligence, incompetence to name a few concerns) he is required to report it.  If he fails to report it, then he himself might be found guilty of misconduct.

Are there different bodies?  Yes.  The State of New York has its own governing body, and the Province of Nova Scotia has its own as well.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

2
Canada has different regulations than the USA.

Registration is mandatory for practice in Canada, whether private, public, or non-profit. You cannot practice without it, leastwise not legally.

Each province or territory has its own association. You must be registered in the province or territory you are practising in. Transferring registration or multiple registration is for the most part fairly painless within Canada once you've attained professional status, although it will cost you for each province (no buy two get the third free).

Professional insurance is usually not required unless you're practising on your own, in which case you'd be a fool not to have it. On the other hand there are no punitive damages in Canada, so lawsuits are nowhere near as frequent or as large as they can be in the States.

There are numerous disciplinary actions taken every year by each association. The associations have the same power as a judicial court. Probably most result in no finding, some with sanctions and / or fines, and a few with suspensions.

NAFTA was supposed to make it easier to gain registration across the border into the USA. Don't know if it has, I've never worried about it since I've always been covered by the industrial exemption any time I've worked there.

As to Mexico, I don't know anything but I'm curious. I hope someone can fill us in.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

3
I assume your question relates to consulting engineers only. None of these rules will apply for any other engineer I can think of. If your designing products for a company you work for, you do not need a PE to do it and the benefits of a PE are minimal. If your a consultant, doing lighting systems for a building, then yes you have to have a PE or the drawings have to be approved by a PE. There are many career paths for engineers where a PE would not help at all.  

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

agreed buzzup, just not many career paths in the real word outside of sheltered industry where non engineers run the show....I have the opportunity to hire a lot of engineers and it is always sad to tell an industry engineer that their experience doesnt count because they dont have a PE and to have them tell me they want so badly to get out of industry....I think if we all had the PE we as a group would be so much more appreciated.

BobPE

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

If you want to work as a consultant get a PE, if you think you might want to work as a consultant, get a PE.

There are plenty of opportunities for EE's, such as myself, who have no PE. I would agree that Civil Engineers probably have way more opportunities with a PE than without. I am not so sure this would be true for EE's.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

(OP)
the question was generally thrown in to see the answer, i was amazed that engineers of say a machine plant would have to be certified. Over in UK , many people call themselve engineers, from greasemonky types to aerospace stress engineers.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Dear Etch, As a UK citizen it may interest you that though the use of the word Engineer is more lax in UK, you get what you pay for The UK has begun a debate on registration standards see www.engc.org.uk .  In view of the increased access to higher education, and NEED to identify technical competence the UK has signed on to an "International Register of Engineers".  Canada and USA are also signatures, though with the very variable State rules it is hard to find out just who has signed on.  This is part in accord with the Federation Eupopeen d'Assoiation Nationales d'ingenieurs (FEANI) which issues the EurIng designation.  The new standard accepts international registration after 7 years experience and is also recognised in Australia and several Asian countries. see www.engc.org.uk/international/irpe.asp for precise requirements

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers



Several of our American friends have posted here about the “industrial exemption”.

Let me be clear. This does not exist in Canada. In order to legally call oneself an engineer or any other title that may lead the public to believe that you are an engineer you MUST be registered as a professional engineer.  Thus something like 90% of engineering school graduates are P.Eng’s (some never entered the field and some branched out into another field like law.) Most of the professors at engineering facilities are P.Eng’s.

The only exemptions are power engineers or boiler operators, train engineers or drivers or military engineers and then you have to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in an engineering capacity. To use the term engineer with any of these traditional exemptions one must use the full term i.e. power engineer.

While this is not always enforced it is the law.

Registration in Canada involves one of two methods. The first is a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited engineering school followed by 4 years work experience under the direction or mentorship of another engineer. The second is to write a series of exams (I believe 22 maximum) which is dependant on an assessment of your educational qualifications, followed by a period of 6 (I think) years experience. In both cases some of this experience must be North American.

Usually liability (also called errors and omissions ) insurance is only required for a practicing engineer who offers engineering services directly to the public. In Manitoba you are required by law to have $500,000 in order to get a permit to practice. In Saskatchewan the requirement is not based on insurance but on  a review of ones experience and submission of references, similar to the initial registration but with higher thresholds. In Alberta the permit to practice only requires that one professional engineer assume responsibility for the ethical practice of the firm.

The insurance is held by the company, not the individual. The costs for the minimum depend on gross billings of the firm and for a one person company with a claim free history, you can expect to pay between $3,000 and $4,000 per year. (All amounts in $ CDN. $CDN=$US 0.65) This will vary greatly depending on your field of practice.


In Canada the profession is regulated by provincial associations. They each have their slightly different requirements but transferring registration is simple, easy and automatic. (For the personal registration not the corporate or permit to practice)

Enforcement of the various acts is left to the individual associations. In Manitoba with over 3,000 engineers and geoscientists there were around 10 complaints last year and none of these were refereed to the discipline committee for action. Past actions have resulted in short term (one week to six months) suspensions of licenses with perhaps a requirement for supervision for a short period after that. I have never personally heard of permanent revocations to practice.

 In both of my associations (Saskatchewan and Manitoba) they spend less that 1% of total fee and other income on act enforcement. Individual registrations cost about $200 to $250 with small corporate registrations around the same.

While I have herd that failure to report unethical conduct is in itself considered unprofessional conduit, I have never heard of anyone being disciplined for it.

Some of the things that get short term suspensions should have, in my opinion, resulted in a permanent expulsion from the profession. (taking another engineers work, reissuing it with out changes or checking for applicability causing problems and serious financial issues, resulted in a six month suspension) These sort of things are not a simple error or lapse in judgment, they show a failure in character that should result in expulsion from the profession.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp:

I agree, finding EE's with registration is tough.  I had the opportunity to design an electrostatic precipitator for an industrial plant.  Several EE's in the plant were really interested in helping me.  They were interested in helping me outside of their company on the side which was perfectally ok with their company.  The problem was, they were not PE's.  The funny thing was that in that outside of the company role they could no longer provide engineering services to their own company.  It was a real wake up call for them.  I mention this because I am a real advocate for getting the word out to engineers about the PE.  Too many engineers don't know anything about the PE.  IT hurst me becuase when I look to hire engineers, industrial engineers have great experience, but it seems when they talk to me, they have no clue of the importance of a PE.  Most if they choose to enter work outside industry get pigeon holed into technician roles which is far below their capacity as an engineer and they get disheartened with consulting quickly.

I do blame industry for the industrial exemption, not the engineers.....I think industry considers engineers tools instead of the professionals that they are, possibly for money reasons.  I have seen industry engineers with over 10 years experience come out at 40k a year and their value in consulting would be over 70k if they had a PE as an example.

good discussion, its interesting to hear about Canada's Peng....

BobPE

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Yeah, for whats its worth, I will be attempting by PE exam in the next year. I like to keep my options open. Great discussion.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Personally, I didn't feel complete as a graduate engineer until I got the PE. It was an enlightening experience. A brief word about how I decided to get the PE:

The chief of the facility where I worked, a major jet engine plant, mentioned in the newsletter that it would be a good thing to get the PE. Hundreds of engineers applied to the state agency for the PE exam. The state officials decided to bring the exam down to the plant.

Six or eight prep courses were organized by the licensed plant engineer types in the plant, and hundreds took the exam. My most enlightening experience connected with this was the intereaction with experienced engineers from various disciplines. Everybody had their shortcuts.

I recommend the PE to all graduate engineers, even those many years out of school. I took mine 13 yrs after grad.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Is taking the EIT exam a mandatory part of getting your PE (have taken mine in college)? I suppose it is different from state to state.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp:

for the most part, yes the EIT is required.  I think there are a few states that may have guidlines for taking the PE without it, like maybe Tennessee.  The problem is, unless you only want the Tn. license, other states will not let you get receprocity without the EIT so you will only have the Tn license.  With the EIT and PE you can get licensed in any state...

BobPE

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

If you're getting licensed for the first time - or are likely to need licensing reciprocity with multiple states in the future - then you should strongly consider registering with the NCEES' Records Program.

http://www.ncees.org/records/establishing_a_record/

I wish the program had existed when I first became registered in Texas - it would have saved me some (but not all) of my grief when I applied for registration in California five years later.  (If you want to compare stupid bureaucratic rules, consider this: at one time, Texas actually prohibited a PE applicant from taking the PE exam until after he/she became licensed.  I guess the Aggies were in charge of the Board then...)


RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

For starters, I am a non-degreed engineer, with extensive Aircraft experience. When I announce this fact, others, with no knowledge of my abilities, automatically downgraded me to a technician. While I have an excellent resume, certificates and all, it lacks that 4-year college degree-my career started as a formula car fabricator and technician in Europe in a small race car factory.
It is my experience that having a degree does NOT really qualify a party to be an engineer in a specific field, but that experience and real skill are the critical components of competency. In my field of heavy Aircraft repair and maintenance, the experience is critical because of the fact that this type of work is not really taught in school. However, I must tell you that I do not recommend entering this engineering field or any other for that matter, without a real degree. In my case after 12 year of work with one company and a stellar work record, I was replaced with a younger, degreed engineer after some highly unethical activities were conducted without my knowledge. In this case, I was assuming that fellow engineers would at least follow the engineering code of ethics. Was I ever wrong!! A turd is a turd, even with a college degree.
 The quality of work originating from the department  deteriorated badly as soon as I left, and the entire dept. simply shut down several months later after my replacement badly botched an avionics/interior conversion job.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Watermelon, your statement "MIGHT not be compulsory if you work in private industry and only design things "inside the business."  As soon as you offer your services to the public at large, then it is compulsory" is wrong.  I have spent my entire engineering career designing things for customers (very large and very much outside my company), and I do not have a PE license.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

melone:

It is against the law in the United States to dispense engineering advice and services to the public as a non licensed engineer.  You can do that under industry exempt only for the company you work for.

Here is a very clear exapmle for everyone to ponder that was used in other posts here on this site.

Lets assume you work for industry and have done engineering for them for 20+ years....I then hire you away from that company to work in my consulting firm.  The firm got a job for oyur old company doing the things you did before you left the company and began working for the consultant.  You could no longer do the engineering for your old company working for the consultant without a PE.  You would be working under a PE to do the work.

Its that plain and simple.....Performing illegal engineering is a serious matter and is punishible under state laws if you are caught (hopefully you would be cought by another engineer and not a failed design that harmed someone).  There are hundreds of cases every year of illegal practice in all the states. Go to your local states Professional Engineering sites to look at them.  

Telling people in here to break the law is not a good thing to do, if you choose to tell them that you break the law, that is your concern.  Since you are not a PE you should reserve yourself not to comment on such serious matters....

BobPE

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Bob - I think you overreacted to melone's comment.

Melone - can you explain the circumstances?  Is what you offer to your customers engineering services, or some other service or product?

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

That is the key, your not offering engineering services, your offering a product (at least in my case). Thus, there is absolutely NO requirement to have a PE. Most the items I have worked on were requests made by other companies (not the public) for a specific product. This is perfectly legal and a very widely accepted practice.
  
I believe that some engineers (at least electrical) do not understand there are numerous engineers working for companies other than a consulting company. Where do you suppose all the products come from that they specify? Generally, not a consulting engineer. But an engineer, such as myself, without a PE. I have worked with several PE's in the power industry. They have their place in doing short circuit analysis etc. I do not have the knowledge to do what they do and they don't have the knowledge to make the products they specify.    

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

electricpete

I read that post a few times to make sure I wasnt over reacting, that is why I worded the opening to my post in such a way to describe engineering advice or services....My comments will not apply to products, but I still believe the post alluded to advice and services....

Thanks for your help, if malone clarifies the post like you asked, believe me, I will stand corrected and my post will be indicative of ASSUME-itis.....

BobPE

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

My personal experience has been in products, and services.  I have designed engine controllers, cell phones, industrial equipment, and also been hired to solve industrial problems that required new equipment (of my own design).  These products had to interact with the public (either the general public or workers in the factory), and I feel that I had to provide a safe piece of equipment.  If my product blew up every 45th cycle, then my company would be held liable for the damages....

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

RDK Writes:
"Registration in Canada involves one of two methods. The first is a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited engineering school followed by 4 years work experience under the direction or mentorship of another engineer. "

I would have no problem if the US followed this example. It would at least address some of us OLDER fellows who got our degrees, but didnt NEED to be a PE back before the do-gooders stuck their noses in. That being said, I still believe anyone doing structural work on buildings should be held to a higher standard than those of us who simply Engineer "things"

BobPE writes:
"It is against the law in the United States to dispense engineering advice and services to the public as a non licensed engineer.  You can do that under industry exempt only for the company you work for."

Actually, we do not dispense advice, we create products. Further, I cannot dispense advice within my company either, if by dispensing advice, you mean of the structural variety that requires a PE.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

RDK writes

"Several of our American friends have posted here about the “industrial exemption”.

Let me be clear. This does not exist in Canada."

Yet under section 12 of the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario specifically calls out the following

Licensing requirement

12. (1) No person shall engage in the practice of professional engineering or hold himself, herself or itself out as engaging in the practice of professional engineering unless the person is the holder of a licence, a temporary licence, a provisional licence or a limited licence. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28, s. 12 (1); 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 11 (16).

and then the following exemption

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to prevent a person,

(a) from doing an act that is within the practice of professional engineering in relation to machinery or equipment, other than equipment of a structural nature, for use in the facilities of the person's employer in the production of products by the person's employer;

Which to my understanding is equivalent to the industry exemption that exists in the US.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

"Which to my understanding is equivalent to the industry exemption that exists in the US."

CanEngJohn:

You're quite correct about the situation in Ontario. There is a broad "industrial exception" in Ontario. This has had a devastating effect on the number of engineers who bother to get themselves Registered in Ontario. I was once registered in Manitoba, where - at that time at least - there was nothing like an "industrial exeption". In the electronics design company where I then worked, well over 90% of the engineers were Registered. (The other 10% did not bother to register because they knew the Manitoba Licencing Board was lazy and toothless). Here in Ontario, on the other hand, where Registration is more or less optional for employee engineers, well under half the engineers in the electronics company where I work are Registered, and the percentage decreases every year as the old-timers retire.

It was not always thus in Ontario. I remember working for Ontario Hydro as a student intern one summer in the 1970s where overnight a lot of "engineers" were renamed "specialists" or "technologists" because the Ontario Board of Registration forced Ontario Hydro to start obeying the law. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this disruption led to a broad industrial exemption being introduced in Ontario.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

<Snip>
"...(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to prevent a person,

(a) from doing an act that is within the practice of professional engineering in relation to machinery or equipment, other than equipment of a structural nature, for use in the facilities of the person's employer in the production of products by the person's employer;..."
<snip>

This is the type of question I would expect to appear in the Law and Ethics exam for P.Eng. registration in Ontario. On first glance, it may appear that a broad exemption similar to that found in the U.S. does exist in the Ontario law. However, a closer examination reveals it really is something quite different. What first appears to be an blanket exemption is actually a very very narrow exception that applies only to the engineering of machinery used to produce the employer's products at the employer's facilities, but NOT the products themselves. In other words, the engineering of an employer's product by employees is fully subject to the provisions of the Ontario Engineers Act but not the engineering of the equipment used in production of that product. There lies the difference.

I'm not a lawyer. Rick was correct in stating there is no exemption.

It's easy to miss this one. I almost did.


ElectroEng

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I must say that I would find really hard to believe that a Canadian electronics design and manufacturing company has  PE's on staff. If this is the law in Canada then I believe the rules are being bent some. On the other hand, I can not think of any Canadian electrical design and manufacturing companies either.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Nortel

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Theres one. I am not being difficult, just curious to know if this law is indeed enforced. If it is, and I was living in Canada, I would want the law changed to bring in more OEM's.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Contrary to popular belief Canada does quite well in the field of electronics engineering. Listed among the world leaders in some high tech areas such as aeronautics, flight simulators, fuel cell technology, telecommunications, satelite electronics, etc. etc. Where we fall down is in the mass production of electronic devices. I would attribute this to the lack of cheap assembly labour rather than costly engineering.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Actually the exemption implies that I can practice engineering in the design of the equipment (but not sign it off as safe - different law) as well as the process the equipment employs to manufacture the product.

This basically would indicate (although this is being challenged regularly) that any Manufacturing, Process or Quality Engineer in manufacturing in Ontario does not need a license to work for their employer. Now I believe this falls slightly short from the Industrial Exemption that exists in the US but it is very similar in my eyes.

Cert of Authorization specifically applies to the practising of Engineering Consultants.  If you are not offering your services as Engineering Consultants you do not need a C of A.

As for Electronics there is a little place just out side of Ottawa called Kanata.  Largest employer of people in the high end electronics and telecommunications industries in Canada.  It is often referred to as the silicon valley of the north.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I think a lot of PE's are really, really confused when it comes to industrial exemption (US or Canadian version). I believe it comes from the lack of experience in the design arena whether it be mechanical or electrical.

The point I was trying to make is I find it impossible to believe that any engineer in Canada working in any position as an engineer needs a PE. If this is indeed true, you could say this law contributes to the lack of OEMs in Canada (due to cost increases). In addition, what happens with imported electrical (or other products)? How do they assure these products are safe to use if it was not made in Canada by a Canadian registered engineer, do they require imported products to include the PE's stamp? Surely they must realize this requirement can be found no where else in the world. That is why I think the law, as PRACTICED in Canada, basically supports what we in the US would call an industrial exemption.

I would like to hear from a Canadian who is working at an OEM as an engineer (designing products) to see what their experience is rather than relying on input from all Canadian PE's.

US and Canadian PE's seem to get a big head when the little license is hanging on their wall. It is something to be proud of but it is not a license to be an industrial exempt basher.     

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

As far as taxes in Canada go it is a myth that we are higher taxed than the USA.

Here are some interesting tax and government spending comparisons.

The tax freedom day in Canada is 28 Jun.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/share...?sNav=nr&id=536

That is 48.8% of the year or 48.8% of GDP.

We have a government surplus of 1.4% of GDP.
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/cosg_203.asp

Therefore our net tax rate is 47.4% of GDP

Tax freedom day in the USA is 19 Apr
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

That is 29.6 % of the year or 29.6% GDP

However we get health care with our tax bill and the USA does not.

The USA spends 13.9% of their GDP on health care.
http://www.who.int/country/usa/en/

They also have a 4.6% budget deficit.
http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/cosg_203.asp

Therefore their net tax rate plus health care costs is 29.6+13.9+4.6=48.1% of their GDP.

In Canada we spend less as a proportion of our GDP on taxes and health care than is spent in the USA. Since our GDP per capita is about 80% of the US GDP per capita it works out to considerably less in dollars per capita than is spent in the USA.

(And as a PS Canadians have a longer life expectancy while spending 57% of the US per capita amount on health care www.who.org. Since 43,000,000 Americans lack health insurance and 18,000 die from that lack annually I’d say our social policy is much more enlightened than the US in that area.)

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Well it's always fun to see our cousins having a tiff, but according to the Big Mac Index for Graduate Engineers, while the USAn's are indeed able to get more cholestrol for every minute they work, on a world scale Canada doesn't do too badly.

http://www.apesma.asn.au/students_graduates/common/big_mac_index.htm

I know this leaves out an important bit, earnings growth over time, but at least it is a rational approach.  

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I guess the Canadians started the US vs Canada argument again so I will stand back and let them fend for themselves. I gave up trying to argue a long time ago.  

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

3
buzzp,

Alright, I'll bite.  I'm a good Canadian lad, with a Mech Eng degree.  I've worked in aircraft mod/certification and OEM supplying the automotive industry.  I have, and my departments have, designed products for sale to both individual and commercial customers, as well as internal manufacturing equipment.  In my limited experience in industry (9 years), the following has been my experience--I in no way speak for anyone else, or represent this as legal/illegal, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, or the like:

-I have never seen a stamped drawing.
-I have never seen a stamped report.
-I have never seen an engineer's stamp.
-I have worked with only one PE, and one EIT.  Both persons had gone through the process for they're own personal edification; it was neither required nor appreciated by the employer. (And certainly not compensated)
-I too would like to get my PE, but have never worked under a PE.
-All the suppliers and customers I have worked with, and the experiences of Mech-Eng-degreed peers at other companies indicate that this is the norm.

Civil engineering appears to be vastly different, and other branches undoubtedly differ as well, but this is what I have seen of Canadian industry.

Regards

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

i278,
Thanks for stepping up and sharing your experience. It is appreciated and Ill give you a star.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

2
i278:

Okay, so that is the situation that you find yourself in.  I will make the statement that the situation that you describe is against the law in Ontario. (I will not get into the details of this, but a quick review of the Professional Engineers Act or a call to the Registrar's office will confirm this)

So the question that I have for you is this.  What are you going to do about it now that you know that?  If you decide to ignore it, saying that you are not licensed, and the rest of your colleagues do the same, the situation will continue to worsen.  

In Ontario there exists no industrial exemption as there does in the US.  If we as Engineers (licensed and not) continue to allow organizations to do this we will lose this protection and further undermine the value of a Professional Engineer.

Dave
p.s. I have found myself in the same situation, being in automotive for the last 4 years.  I am in the process of filing a complaint.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

What improvements would you see by requiring all engineers in Canada to be licensed? NONE. You can expect to see a large exodous of OEMs leaving Canada due to the costs associated with getting all your engineers licensed. And what does this mean? Nothing except potential heartache for engineers. Employers would still drive the final product and push it out the door when they see fit, whether its your stamp or some other engineers stamp, does not matter. If you don't sign someone else will. And what to gain by having the design stamped? Nothing. The product will still go through safety agency approvals whethers its Canadas CSA or the US's UL. Makes zero sense all the way around.   

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

So the question that I have for you is this.  What are you going to do about it now that you know that?

dporte17,

At the risk of being ground beneath the heels of the profession, my honest answer:

I will continue to do absolutely nothing.

I don't even know for certain whether this practice is truly illegal here (this isn't Ontario).  I realize that I could find out simply enough--the rules are probably the same here--but truth is, it won't change what I do.  What would I accomplish?  Stir up trouble for my employer, my coworkers, myself?  All these people (my employer included) I consider friends.  They are good folks working in good faith.  Until I throw myself on the mercy of the court for speeding to work every morning and that illegal u-turn I made yesterday, busting my company would be hypocritical.  And I'd be a jerk.

I realize that 'everybody else is doing it' is no excuse for not following the law.  Other's situations will vary, of course, but for me the long and the short of it is:  I have to live here.

Regards

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I have a stupid question,

Does the PEO want the design of every car out of Windsor and the like stamped by an Ontario P.Eng.?

I understand the automotive industry has very, very few professional engineers in their manufacturing.

VOD

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

"...You can expect to see a large exodous of OEMs leaving Canada due to the costs associated with getting all your engineers licensed. And what does this mean? Nothing except potential heartache for engineers...."


buzzp,

Where is your proof that the licensing of Ontario engineers leads to increased cost and Exodus of OEMs from the province? The fact is, most Canadian engineers are already licensed in the province they work, whether you like it or not. This is inherent in the system of accreditation. Businesses aren't going to pull out just because engineers receive a university education, pass exams and get licensed. Instead, businesses here in Canada tend to worry more about things like taxation.

ElectroEng

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

dporte17

"that the situation that you describe is against the law in Ontario"

This could be true for the aircraft mod/certification aspect of the experience as listed (we don't have enough details).  As for his OEM experience there isn't anything there that violates Ontario law.  And as I posted earlier form the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario there does exist an exemption (Section 12) in industry where one can perform Engineering without a license if one is designing equipment or processes "for the person's employer".

The number of Tier 1 OEMS in Canada which encourage and employ licensed Engineers is on the increase however there is very little need for an extensive number due to the exemption clause found under section 12.  And automobiles manufactured in Canada don't need a P Eng stamp since they were not designed in Canada.

As for the costs going up argument it barely holds water.  Most Tier 1 OEMs pay their Engineers well enough that a licensed Engineer does not make that much more (typically 10% or less).  Also there is very little that a Manufacturing Plant needs a licensed Engineer for so they will not go overboard on their hiring.  Most plants will operate with a number of techs (6 to 8 for larger plants) and only 2-3 licensed Engineeers (1 Electrical, 1 Mechanical and 1 Manager) at most. Which would be enough to cover all the legal requirements quite readily.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp –
Following the logic that you present in your post, we should abandon all licensing because “Employers would still drive the final product and push it out the door when they see fit”.  I disagree with that.  If you are hired as a licensed engineer then you are protected by the law in the event that you do have to take a stand because you feel a decision is unsafe.  If you are not licensed, you do not have the same protection.  In the real world the situation is not so black and white, but I disagree with abandoning the system all together because there are deficiencies.  I think we need to strengthen the licensing process and protection rather than weakening it by dismissing it as useless.  

i278 –
I don’t propose that you become the proverbial whistleblower, but rather keep it in mind that the situation is not ideal.  I am going to file a complaint only because I went through 4 months of raising the issues to my management and HR only to be dismissed.  I did not present to them a situation where they had to fire all the non-licensed persons and replace them with licensed, but rather recognise that the people who are not licensed should not be holding themselves out as “Engineers” outside of the company, and if they have design responsibility, they are supposed to be licensed or have their work reviewed by a licensed P.Eng.  It is when my pleas for change fell on deaf ears did I decide that I needed to file a complaint.(which might die after a letter, but I did what I could)  Perhaps you can think of some moderate actions such as talking to some people about it, and hopefully in the future they will look to fill the positions with licensed engineers.

VOD –
No, that is not what the PEO wants.  What they do want is that when engineering is performed in Ontario that is covered under the Ontario Professional Engineers Act that the person doing the Engineering is in compliance with that law.  That is not just what they want, but rather the fundamental mandate that is at the heart of the very existence of the organization.  And yes, there are very few engineers in the automotive industry.  Being part of that industry, I know.  That is the result of many factors none the least of which is the spill over of the industrial exemption in Michigan and the misconception that similar laws exist here.  This is something that we can only hope to change in the long run.(also see further discussion of this below)

CanEngJohn –
I was working on the “I have, and my departments have, designed products for sale to both individual and commercial customers” statement for that, and the assumption that the statement would be true for at least one portion of the experience described.  You are correct that I may have been incorrect, but I think we would need more information to understand that fully.  That said, I think the exemption in Ontario is often misunderstood.  Ken McMartin wrote and excellent article on this topic in the March/April edition of Engineering Dimensions (www.peo.on.ca – look under publications for an online version).  And yes, you are correct that there are several employers in Ontario that are very good about encouraging licensing, but we still have a long way to go.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

If companies are required to have PE's then it is assumed they will be paying for the license fees and the insurance (if not directly then indirectly because of increased wages, someone said 10%). With the bottom line being the only thing important to executives then this 10% of wages for a company with 10 engineers is significant. Why have the added cost by setting up shop in Ontario? Go somewhere where PEs are not required. Save this added expense right off the top and not have to worry about an engineer signing the design.
The same law that will protect the licensed engineer is the same law that is apparently enforced (not) in Ontario. It would be a very uncomfortable situation for the engineer. "I would rather do it this way to make me feel just a bit better but the boss man does not want to spend the extra $1 per product". "If I don't sign off here will they give it to the new guy and he will get all the credit?" "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?" You see the consultant is in charge of their project and if the customer does it like it he can hire someone else (increased cost to find and bring another consultant up to date- so their is some deterrence not to change) where an exempt has to listen to what the company wants to do, if they don't like it, they will simply find an engineer who will do it their way.
I still don't see the logic in the argument. And judging by the responses, never will. I would encourage all the those in favor of eliminating the industrial exemption to gain some experience in this area before arguing for the elimination of this engineer. Working in both areas, I can say it would be a huge mistake and do nothing for the engineer just put him in an uncomfortable situation.
What do you pro licensing folks know about safety agencies? Do you know what they do? By arguing for abolishment of the industrial exempt you are also arguing for abandoning the safety agencies such as UL and CSA (these are the companies that test the products you specify to assure they are safe). There already is in place two sets of eyes looking at a prodcut. Abolishing the industrial exemption will reduce this to one set of eyes, and with bias.
Honestly, how many of you have experience in designing products (working in the exempt world)? If have none, then you really are lacking any ammo in this argument. Not to say your dumb just have not had that experience so you would not understand the barriers in the product design world or the hoops that are necessary to jump through to get a product to market. Adding a PE stamp to the mix only adds another hoop that has NO benefit.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp,

No one here is suggesting the licensing system should replace CSA and UL approvals for products. It is common routine practice for PEngs to specify CSA or UL-C approved components wherever possible in the complex systems they are responsible for.

Professional engineers also bring added value to employers by mitigating potential court challenges on the employer's due diligence should product liability issues arise.

You stressed the importance of a 10% savings on engineering wages but, think about this. In a world where cheap labor sources are abundant offshore, we in North America can no longer afford to compete based on wages alone. You probably already know India and China pay their engineers less than 1/5th of what typical Canadian or American engineers are paid. With that kind of wage gap, we have to compete based on quality, innovation and excellence. That is where PEngs can help.


ElectroEng

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Yes your right, how stupid of me. PE's are the only ones who can provide quality, innovation, and excellence! I see the light now. Thanks guys.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Buzzp wrote

"I would like to hear from a Canadian who is working at an OEM as an engineer (designing products) to see what their experience is rather than relying on input from all Canadian PE's."

I didn't respond to this earlier but just to let you know that I do fit the criteria.  I am often part of the design team that brings new OEM products to the market.  I work for an OEM that is also a Tier 1 supplier in the automotive world and I am a licensed Canadian PE based in Ontario.

Just to let you know since you seem somewhat concerned with who the voices are in this discussion.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp:

Along the same lines of CanEngJohn, I have worked at an OEM with design and release responsibility, as well as in another position that was manufacturing process related.  I am now at a Tier 1 supplier.  Both companies were in Ontario, and I am now in the final stages of getting my license.

I was incidentally involved in several recalls by that OEM, one of which killed people.  The person who made the design change was not a licenced P.Eng, and was uncomfortable with the decision when he made it.  Perhaps he was considering "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?".  

Further discussions with the licensed engineers revealed that they feel that they can take a stand in that case.  If they are fired or in some way reprimanded because of their refusal to make a decision they know that they can sue under wrongful dismissal.  Being hired as P.Engs, they are expected to make those decisions and in doing so reflect the Code of Ethics as spelled out by the Engineer's Act.  The same protection is not afforded to non-licensed Engineers.  

I am under no illusion that in a court of law that things will be this black and white, and that the common law doesn't provide some measure of protection for un-licensed practitioners.  That said, knowing that there is that support can mean tremendous amounts to the person in the situation, and can provide a legal framework to lean on.

If the engineer that made that decision was able to lean on that legal and professional support he might not have given in to the requests by management and perhaps those people would be alive today.

Can you see the logic in that argument?

Dave

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Just my 2 cents.

I worked for an OEM of Aircraft components in Ontario a few years ago, and there is no requirement for the Stress Analysts, nor designers to be licensed by the PEO.  This is not illegal as the PEO has no authority over aircraft components.  The authority of aircraft components is governed by a Federal body, and hence overrides the PEO.  I am sure this is also the case for the automotive industry.

Secondly, it could be argued that all components produced by engineers in the automotive industry are not actually providing a service directly to the public.  Their products are designed for use by the manufacturer, and then that is transfered to the public.  So only the company would require a CofA to sell their product to the public.

Not positive on the second point, but it could be a reasonable arguement for no licensing requirement.

Regards,
jetmaker

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

dporte17,
 I have avoided this thread for a while because it is going no where. In any case, your statement;

"The person who made the design change was not a licenced P.Eng, and was uncomfortable with the decision when he made it.  Perhaps he was considering "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?"

Makes no sense. If the guy did not have his PE why would he think "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?" ????

If the guy had concerns, he should of brought it up and took actions to make it better. Thats all he can do. The ultimate decision is up to the company. Now maybe if he had his PE he may have had the thought above but you said he didn't. Furthermore, ultimately, the company will do what they want, PE or not.

As far as being sued for wrongful termination, the exempt engineer has the same thing to stand on. You don't get this option, magically, when you get your PE. It is for protection of every employee (at least in the US).

Every engineer is taught the code of ethics. PE's do not become ethical wizards when they get licensed. I would say most engineers practice good ethical guidelines, PE or not.

In your example, you must agree that the company would have done what they wanted, one way or the other. This means one engineer or another. The guy you use in this case apparently is not very ethically as he should of jumped up and voiced his concerns.  

You make it sound like you inherit all these great traits when you become a licensed engineer; you become an ethical person, you are given legal rights that other engineers do not get, and you technically expertise becomes automatically enhanced. In reality, none of these are true.

ElectroEng,
 Unlicensed engineers are allowed to testify in a court of law. There is nothing magical about the PE in this case. There have been several cases where the expert on the subject is not a PE. I don't recall any specific cases but there are some.
The 10% savings in wages is huge to the business manager. Granted that over seas wages are less than 90% of someone here in North America but it is still savings. Sending engineering work over seas is not an option for many companies. You should know that savings on engineering payrolls of 10% is a HUGE number to the guy counting pennies. Heck, I would not even over look that. So your argument is only good for companies that can and will send engineering work over seas. It may be that more of the consulting work is going over seas than the design work, I don't know but I could see it being true.

Okay Ill end for now.   

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

(OP)
okay since i started it i better add my part now.

I didnt want to create a riff between the us and canadian engineers. To be honest i just wanted to know the difference, here in the UK anyone can call themselves an engineer.

Maybe you should all just accept that its the people that are skilled not the countries

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

Just to try and clear one thing up, there appears to be a misunderstanding on whether there's an industrial exemption in Ontario, there isn't leastwise not the same as in the US. Every province in Canada has a similar clause to the one referred to. I've heard it referred to as the millwright clause. Its main purpose is to allow anyone to design jigs, fixtures, processes etc. for the support of manufacturing or servicing. It does not apply to any product offered to the public. Also equipment designed for use by an employer may still require you to have a PEng anyways if it is covered under a safety code; boilers & overhead lifting equipment for examples.

The Certificate of Authorization is required in addition to the PEng license (not instead of)if you are offering services to the public and you must have a PEng on staff or available to obtain a CofA. However, a company may obtain a CofA and hire non-licensed engineers to perform engineering as long as they have one P.Eng saying he's responsible for their work. Theoretically you could have a hundred non-licensed engineers churning out thousands of designs as long as you had one PEng running around checking them all and taking responsibility. Course that he wouldn't be very ethical so I can't see that happening, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp:

In order to not go in circles forever, I will agree to disagree with you on this one.  I support licensing because I think it provides another level of protection of the public and the engineer.  You do think that it does, so in essence it becomes a cost without benefit.

I am not content with the status quo of the profession, and wishing to move forward I think one way we can improve things is to strengthen the licensing process.  I am going to jump to the conclusion that many of the members of this forum similarly want to improve the engineering profession, yourself included.  You don't agree that we need to use licensing to do this, but rather go about it in another way.  

I think we are not going to convince each other of their respective perspectives, but hopefully you have learnt something of my perspective, as I think I have learnt something of yours.  

Cheers,
Dave

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I will agree to disagree with you. I do not feel that licensing makes the public any safer. This does not mean that I support anyone calling themselves an engineer, if they go through the right accredited colleges. It sounds like in Canada that no test is required so there really is no difference in a new grad and the licensed person except experience. I just do not believe that requiring such a license will help anyone. I do believe it will hurt engineers in the long run.
I think in order to come up with solutions we first need to define the problem. What are we trying to improve; the wages? the publics perception? If you can tell me what you think needs improving then I think we can come up with better solutions other than requiring licensing.

I am still not sure if the exemption exists in Canada anywhere and judging by the responses, there is also disagreement amongst Canadian engineers.

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp wrote:
"..Unlicensed engineers are allowed to testify in a court of law...."

In Canada, engineering is a regulated profession. By law, most engineer are licensed. The provision of expert testimony and advising on an engineering matter in a court of law might be regarded as practicing professional engineering.

Even the least informed lawyer should be well aware of the statutes relating to the practice of engineering in the Canadian jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is not difficult to find licensed engineers who are experts in any engineering discipline working in academia or industry, and who are capable of and willing to offer expert testimony on engineering matters. I would imagine that in a Canadian court, a cross-examination of an unlicensed expert witness might go something like this:

Cross-examining Lawyer:
You said you are an expert in XYZ engineering so tell us, Mr. Expert Witness, how long have you been licensed to practice engineering?

Expert Witness:
License, what license?

Cross-examining Lawyer:
I have no further questions.

I'm not saying that unlicensed engineers cannot testify in Canadian court of law, but when the testimony involves an engineering matter well within the domain of many licensed engineers, why would any lawyer risk the possibility of this kind of cross-examination in a court of law?


ElectroEng



RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

I dont know. You will have to ask the lawyers.
 
I have always heard a PE is required to testify in a court of law in the US. Up til about five years ago, I believed it. But there are many cases where the expert does not have a PE. I can see the cross examination by whichever side that called the engineer as being,
 "based on your 30 years of working experience, your published books, and your chair of ____ IEEE committee, would you say that ____". It can go the other way very easily.  

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp:

As for the testifying in court, you are right it can go either way.  Really depends on the matter on which the expert needs to render an opinion.  In accident reconstruction, often times there are P.Engs involved in testifying, and being licensed and practicing in the field does help establish credibility, but there are often other qualified persons testifying such as police officers in the capacity of the expert witness.  I'm sure there are specific examples of the same phenomenon in other disciplines.

As far as what needs to be improved in Engineering, that can be the subject of an entire other thread, which I think I am going to start.  In my opinion there are many areas where Engineers are losing ground as a group; wages, respect of the profession by the public, employment security (conflicting reports of rising unemployment and undersupply of engineers).  

I will start up a thread to that effect in the "Where is Engineering going" forum and see where it goes.

Cheers,
Dave

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

buzzp wrote:
"based on your 30 years of working experience, your published books, and your chair of ____ IEEE committee, would you say that ____". It can go the other way very easily....."  

In Canada, the type of expert witness you described above is typically a university professor. In Ontario universities at least, it is very common to find PEngs in electrical engineering departments. In one school I checked, about 3/4 of the ECE department comprised of licensed engineers. Of course, they all hold PhDs and not all of them would have 30 years of experience, but the ones who do have substantial experience (i.e. department chairs) are very likely to also have their PEng Licenses.

While one may find EE professors in Canada who have academic credentials, without PEng registration, I do think that if engineering students are to gain an appreciation for the profession, and what it means to their careers, there are few better examples than a professor who is also a licensed professional engineer.


ElectroEng

RE: Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers

2
Really, when you get right down to it, an engineering PE license, based on a simple two-day examination, and then renewed like a driver's license, isn't much "credential", certainly not the same as passing the legal bar, or your internship as a physician, or being a field construction engineer for five years.

The EIT's I have known, whew, most couldn't find the right end of a hammer, and making that credential all the more difficult and complex to obtain only ensures they'll ignore field experience, which, after all, for 150 years was what the term "engineer" meant. Someone who could work with their hands and with their head, a hardhat and tool belt.

Today, if you work in the public sector as a consultant, you must have a PE registration and you must have E&O insurance, although, again, who are you insuring? You're insuring the client, not yourself, and you're only paying for the attorney's fees. They'll skin you alive. So where is that $25,000+ a year coming out of? Your net income.

So, many engineers get into government, where E&O is not required, or work in industry, again, where experience is more valuable than a piece of paper on the wall. There are thousands of engineers without PE's, some who washed out and are pecking along as best they can, and some who can't be bothered with the *process*, the incredible bureaucracy that has built up around commercial engineering today.

You older guys know what I'm talking about. Engineering used to be a *profession*. If you were the engineer, you were a god! Today, you're a bookkeeper, a statistician, and a code butt-sniffer. It doesn't matter how much experience you have or how many projects you built that touched the sky, there's gonna be some hired-gun code expert who will rake you over the coals, permit review after permit review, fee after fee, continuing education, a new code book every four years, man, they got this thing dicked!

I built a skyscraper in '84 that cost $30M. Today, a simple justice center can cost $300M. Think that's the materials? I built a powerplant in '88 for $45M. Today, a powerplant can cost over $1B, easy. Think that's in higher salaries?

No wonder in industry they often just go out and do it. If you just can't stand the process anymore, and really want to get your hands dirty, go into industry, or go expatriate and work for Uncle Sam overseas. Permit? What permit? I don't need no stinking permit. And I don't need no stinking certificate on the wall.

In the field is the only place left you can still be free. Office engineering is the most miserable profession around, and I truly feel sorry for "PE's" who fall into that trap.

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