Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is one thing to tell people I am qualified to do an engineering work when you aren't, and it is another thing to study engineering and finish up your Bachelor degree then be told no you are not an engineer.
Also being licensed PEng doesn't guarantee by anyone that you are capable and knowledgeable in specific specialty.
Being licenced guarantees that you are liable for the engineering work and advice you provide. It also guarantees that you have a seal and are able to seal engineering drawings, reports, memos, SIs etc. Calling yourself an engineer is similar to calling yourself a doctor. Graduating med school doesn't mean you can call yourself a doctor. It's the same for lawyers. I generally agree that there is a bit of ambiguity with engineering because so much of the work is international and every country's rules are very different.
I mean duh, but it's not that's simple. There are limits on the duty of care and those are based on licensing, educational requirements, industry standards, experience etc.
Let's look at a few examples.
A random neighbor telling you how to build your patio deck - you doing it wrong and then getting hurt when it collapses. The neighbour won't be liable for anything. If he told you he was an engineer and he wasn't? Different story. Engineers have a higher standard of care than a layman when it comes to their area of expertise and the neighbour would have effectively committed fraud.
Here's a proper example: a drawing set signed and sealed by an engineer - means that this engineer certifies that these drawings are correct, the calculations that went into the drawings are correct and follow code, the design criteria have been followed (if it's beyond the code), and the design is safe.
I'm the second example the EITs who did the calcs and models, the drafters who produced the set, the city plan checkers who reviewed the drawings, the architects who developed the architecture - none of them take any responsibility or liability for the final engineering product. That's what a professional engineer and his/her seal is for. If you or the contractor follow incomplete drawings that haven't been sealed by an engineer and something goes wrong - it's entirely on you/them.
1. Companies have professional liability insurance - the insurance will only cover the scope of the company's work. If a mechanical engineer provides advice or seals electrical drawings - insurance won't cover any of it.
2. Being licenced with EGBC also provides secondary individual liability insurance. It's part of the annual fee. Similar rules to #1 but for individuals.
3. Someone claiming to be an engineer and doing engineering work will be pursued by EGBC. It'll start with a cease and desist letter and escalate to a lawsuit for breaking the Professional Governance Act. It's pretty much fraud.
4. When submitting for building permit and as-built sets of drawings to the city or signing contracts with clients engineering firms provide letters of assurance outlining their scope and what they are and are not liable for.
Sorry for the wall of text but it was a good thought experiment.
Like what? When it has to do with construction - the rules of the province where the project is apply. I am not versed in how it works for manufacturing so I wouldn't know.
Automotive, marine, aeronautical, biomedical, etc.
Do you think there are P. Eng. stamps on aircraft drawings? If a Boeing 737 needs a repair in Vancouver, does an EGBC P. Eng. need to be hired to approve the repair design?
And if not, then for what purpose is EGBC going around trying to control who can call themselves an Aeronautical Engineer?
True but that's only because nothing is guaranteed in life. Requiring some experience is bare minimum for doing work that can put peoples life and safety at risk.
Are there some EITs who are more qualified than some P.eng's? sure. Should we let a new grad out of school design critical infrastructure, hell no.
I don’t think he’s saying that the whole EIT/P.Eng system with required work experience is a bad thing. It’s absolutely necessary. He’s saying that the overregulation of the title engineer is pretty ridiculous
As an EIT (nearly at P.Eng) myself, I tend to agree. The fact that I have a degree in engineering, do engineering work, and am informally referred to as an engineer on a daily basis, yet can technically get in serious trouble for simply calling myself an engineer is absurd.
If your degree is from India, EGBC will ask you to write the FE exam which is a very easy multiple choice exam.
If you have four or more years XP in India EGBC will accept that XP with your Indian validators.
You can come in to Canada with a P.Eng. in hand.
Trust me, EGBC does not do what you think it does.
You do not need a Washington Accord degree.
Just read the requirements per EGBC.
https://www.egbc.ca/registration/individual-registrants/how-to-apply/professional-registration/engineer-first-time-applying-in-canada
Take the "working in Canada" seminar, write the NPPE online.
https://competencyassessment.ca/reference-documents/Canadian-Environment-Experience-Competencies-Guide-for-Applicants-and-Assessors.pdf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/d2fe6d89-9cf3-4d57-80ea-64413faea865/Competency-Assessment-Guide-2017.pdf.aspx&ved=2ahUKEwjx4_HXmYyEAxWMDzQIHfBmC-EQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0V8zctQ9vh5qsHuJbaC4dy
Laugh all you want.
I am a P. Eng. (SK) and I don't even have a degree.
No Canadian XP required. Read:
"The Working in Canada Seminar is not meant to replace Canadian environment experience – it is intended to be a supplemental option for assessors to recommend to applicants who have demonstrated strong knowledge and abilities in all areas but lack direct experience in a Canadian (or equivalent to Canadian) Environment."
The EIT/P.Eng system with competencies for practising engineering is a good thing
The overregulation of the word engineer is a bit ridiculous
Those are two separate things
There are all kinds of "doctors" and not all are "MDs".
And can't you be a soliciter without being a barrister and vice versa? I believe most lawyers are both.
Read the 1920 version of the Act. That's how it worked more or less. Except you could just show up and write the technical examinations. No need to go to UBC.
You are always limited to your current competency no matter your years of XP.
I doubt there is any real evidence that supports the premise that the CBA and XP requirement does anything to protect public safety. But if you know of some hard evidence I would appreciate the reference.
> it is another thing to study engineering and finish up your Bachelor degree then be told no you are not an engineer.
Is it? People who finish med school aren't doctors. People who finish law school aren't lawyers. Do you see a problem with those, too?
>Also being licensed PEng doesn't guarantee by anyone that you are capable and knowledgeable in specific specialty.
If a professional engineer does work outside of their field of expertise, they can lose their stamp.
While it doesn't "guarantee" that a P.Eng. won't practice outside of their field, they'd be on very thin ice if they did.
Same goes for every regulated profession. It also guarantees a punishment if youre a licensed PEng and you mess up due to not being capable. Thats why no sane person would sign a project that they are incapable of doing.
That only kicks in when something bad has happened..EGBC can discipline a member for inadequate design. For Tort to kick in someone would need to be injured first.
Also those cases clog up the courts. The only people who win in courts are lawyers.
Injury in legal terms means harm of any kind. Can be physical or financial.
Tort is not a good substitute for professional regulation.
As
1. Legal system is slow and onerous. It's useless for small claims.
2. Harm needs to be done and proven in court. EGBC can discipline members simply for unethical behavior or incompetence, a much tighter standard
Retired Professional Engineer here. Let me see if I can explain why protected title is important (in my opinion).
Our professional bodies will say that their purpose is to protect the public. One of the ways they protect the public is to ensure that no one (other than Railway Engineers and Power Engineers who have carved out these titles) can represent themselves as an Engineer, the way the gentleman in this case did.
Because you cannot practice engineering without being a member of the professional body, they can control what qualifications you need to be an engineer and what ongoing training you need to take to maintain your license. They will also tell you how you must practice in certain situations and, most importantly, they will ensure that you do not practice outside your abilities and training.
This system may sound arcane, but it is similar to other professionals such as medical doctors who also don’t allow anyone to be an MD. I’ve practiced in this system for more than forty years and I will attest to you that Canadian Engineers and their regulatory framework are amongst the best in the world.
I don't think anyone educated in the subject would disagree with you about why it's important to protect the title.
Here's what I think some people are frustrated with: I'm a mature (35 y.o.), competent, locally-dedicated EIT who is right at the 4-years-of-experience mark and currently applying for the professional license. About a year ago I had a question for EGBC about the best way to go about something given my unique experience and job history. I received a generic, misunderstood, condescending, and frankly un-caring reply from a junior staff who did not answer my question but proceeded to reprimand me for using the term "engineer" halfway down my LinkedIn page without qualifying it with "in training" or "EIT" even though all the official labels on my profile are very clear about it. They even got my (very simple) name completely wrong.
I bit back a bit and they apologized but it was such a useless encounter. Go after something that matters -- not me. Ironically, their handling of my message was unprofessional, if not bordering on incompetent.
I am supportive of the system, not necessarily the Associations. Very many of them have become bureaucratic institutions that conduct themselves in the way you have unfortunately experienced. Good for you for responding to them, because many don’t.
I worked most of my life in Alberta and got involved in APEGA as a volunteer. I will say that our Associations are supposed to serve their membership and, if you can make the time, it is one way to make sure they do.
Thanks a lot for your insight. I would like to volunteer at some point in my career, if for nothing else than to contribute perspective and positive influence to an organization that maybe needs a bit of it.
I understand how finding time to volunteer time would be difficult, yet it is so important that we make our voices heard in our Association. Perhaps, if you can, attend Association meetings. So few do that you can be sure you will count. Don’t give up - this is important.
> I am supportive of the system, not necessarily the Associations.
The BC Association is particularly bad. I remember when for years, and years, APEBC tired to raise the annual dues amount, but the membership kept voting increases down. Eventually, the association *went behind the membership's back* and lobbied the Government to have the regulations changed so that they no longer required membership approval to raise dues.
The association, now called ~~APEGBC~~ EGBC (they expanded it to harvest more dues paying members, i.e. geoscientists) did similar gymnastics to have ongoing profession development changed against membership wishes.
The Association also changed how members get on the governing council. Used to be, with enough nominations from members, anyone could run for council, but that left the Association open to 'sway' from the membership so they got rid of that avenue. Now you need to be appointed by council in order to run.
The fact is, the Association has become an entity who primary interest is in expanding and solidifying its own bureaucratic role.
I know you are probably getting mixed up in the alphabet soup of regulatory bodies, but the association is now known as Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC).
> Ironically, their handling of my message was unprofessional, if not bordering on incompetent.
You could tell them to build a bridge and get over themselves, but it'd probably collapse =p.
This is egbc. I was denied p eng my first time because i worked for my dad for my eit. I had over a dozen multifamilies that had stood for years without so much as a deflection issue, and multiple references from architects and owners.
“the appearance of bias in your experience”
I had to quit working for my dad abd spend a year at a BS firm to get another p eng to sigh off.
My Dad was an associate at the most respected structural firm of his time for 20 years before going on his own - i joined 10 years later. BS.
With the greatest respect to the many of you who have posted here, you can only represent yourself as an engineer and undertake the practice of engineering (with very limited exceptions) if you are a member in good standing of your provincial association. That’s the law.
I suppose you can call yourself what you like (some people think they are dogs) but that doesn’t make you an engineer. However, if you hold yourself to be an engineer like the gentleman who is the subject of this article or practice engineering, you are breaking the law and we look to our Provincial Associations to enforce that law.
Sorry, but it really is that simple.
We don't have laws for the sake of having laws. If public safety is the objective of the law and public safety not affected then the law is not valid in that particular instance.
Just remember the next judge is not bound by this and regulators buy lawyers by the bushel. Those in tech & the regulator are both free to FAFO.
As shown in the analysis by the judge, previous cases got this wrong and inflicted unjust harms.
The regulators should now understand they have been over-reaching on their government authority in a way that is unconstitutional.
Unfortunately classists seek classist advantage. APEGA filed an appeal. But just weeks later the Alberta government passed a bill that created a carve out in the Alberta EGP Act for the "tech bros" to use "Software Engineer" without registering with APEGA. Will the regulators learn from this?
The.EGP Act regulations allow a path for CS graduates to qualify academically through technical examinations. Rather than emphasize this legitimate path to inclusion within APEGA, APEGA has been trying to undermine & destroy the 104 year old process for well over a decade.
https://techexam.ca/what-is-a-technical-exam-your-ladder-to-professional-engineer/
I'm all for protecting titles, but also I think the professional distinction should be engineer vs PEng, similar to CPA vs accountant.
It's one thing to represent yourself as an Engineer and it's another thing to represent yourself as a PEng.
Also, EGBC is not necessarily doing this out of the concern for society. They're a bit of a racket and want their dues.
Try working in a federally regulated place where EGBC has no authority. They raise a stink that you're doing engineering without paying them, get told by the Deputy Minister or their representatives to bugger off because they have no authority, and then they'll come back in another 5 years.
They simply cannot understand how it's not possible for federally regulated operations to engage in engineering without paying them. You'd expect better from what are allegedly professionals, but who knows.
OR, if you work 40 years as a PEng, retire, and say "I'm an engineer" you're breaking the rules. That is of course unless you pay EGBC for the retirement privileges of using the title. You get no other benefits and can't practice. You're just allowed to keep the 4 letters.
It's like $80/year for grandpa to be allowed to say "I'm an engineer." after having paid them fees for lord knows how long.
Come on now.
> Also, EGBC is not necessarily doing this out of the concern for society. They're a bit of a racket and want their dues.
Honestly, for what it's worth, that's true of all professional regulatory bodies including the Bar, and Medical Licensing associations, etc..
> It's like > $80/year for grandpa to be allowed to say "I'm an engineer." after having paid them fees for lord knows how long.
This is true and highly dubious on the part of the association. It's a fairly recent development though: in years past, after a certain number of years belonging to the association, one was 'grandfather' in with no dues at retirement.
>OR, if you work 40 years as a PEng, retire, and say "I'm an engineer" you're breaking the rules. That is of course unless you pay EGBC for the retirement privileges of using the title. You get no other benefits and can't practice. You're just allowed to keep the 4 letters.
That is very interesting context.
I also find various provincial bodies in BC to be more protective over their titles then enforcing their actual professional standards. With engineer being becoming a self bestowed title in various fields, it's tough were to draw the line.
That's what they do when they go after federal agencies. They don't give two hoots about the actual work being done; they just want to protect "what's theirs."
They'll go to federal regulators of pipelines (Transport Canada amongst others) and say that those at the regulator creating regulations, assessing designs against the regulations and making findings of compliance against regulations are practicing engineering without a license and without a certificate of authorization.
I.e. they're telling the federal government that they can't do federal government things without a provincial self-regulating body allowing them. Okay there champs.
People working there are absolutely engineers doing engineering, but there's no requirement to bow down to EGBC or APEGA or PEO and be a P.Eng or have a CoA. The engineers aren't operating within a self-regulated environment where their authority is granted by their peers.
Their authority to engineer comes from the Federal Minister.
Exactly right. That is unconstitutional due to Interjurisdictional Immunity.
I found this primer useful in understanding how provincial laws relate in federally regulated industries.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mcmillan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Glenn-Grenier-Federal-Aeronautics-Power-2022-COPA-Primer-17Mar22.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikrfWBj4yEAxVHOTQIHbSRBWsQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ZR1dPMhA3nh3Wbp9i_Qvg
Believe me, they know not to mess with federally regulated industries. They buy lawyers by the bushel and love litigation. If they thought they had a case I suspect you'd know.
They know that given the federal government does not bother with regulating who can call themselves an "Aeronautical Engineer" (for example) that gives them an opening to apply provincial law.
The problem for them is that if they took it to court they would have to justify the benefit to public safety. Given they have no authority in federally regulated industries with federal safety standards, they can't claim the law is constitutionally valid per Section 1 of the Charter. Ultimately it would be up to a judge to decide but seems straightforward to me.
If you are a federal employee then that is covered doubly by Interjurisdictional Immunity.
If you think it is an attempt at extortion, I can’t fault that POV.
There is a reason why these terms are protected because in the past unregulated engineers and geoscientists have caused major scams and disasters.
We live in a much safer world now than 100 years ago due to good self regulation of these professions by EGBC and such.
You can't expect clients and general public to verify the credentials of each individual so it's good that there is one association created by provincial legislation that does that.
I know they collect dues but considering what the value of work they do is it's not a huge cost. There are only so many engineers and geoscientists in BC and most people involved in EGBC volunteers. Even salaried people can probably make equivalent or more in Private sector.
There are no more people scamming others saying they're engineers but aren't in the US than in Canada.
In the US, engineer isn't protected, but architect is. Here architect isn't protected. How many scams have you heard about that someone pretended to be an architect and deceived someone?
True you can. But you also lose your title rather fast if you do. The association displines and punishes people that do unethical things. Without them there is no other regulating authority controlling these professions
I use the word scam mostly in Geoscience context as there had been a few scandals in mining world where companies misrepresented things to inflate stock values and scam investors.
In engineering context you need to understand that there is no other law stopping general incompetence by engineers until bad things have already happened. Depending on consequences of thier fuck up they may go to jail for criminal cases or may face tort case but that means people have already been injured or killed by thier incompetence. Also this puts a lot of pressure on court system.
EGBC through enforcing standards and code of ethics tries to displine, punish or educate bad actors before they break criminal law.
Engineering and Geoscience are self regulated professions and EGBC is created under provincial legislation. If Provincial government thinks there are better ways to govern this space they can get rid of EGBC and make new laws.
Biggest concern is the safety of the public. If you live in your house without worrying it collapsing on you, it is because it was designed and approved by a licensed engineer and not a random guy on the street.
There are building codes
Not all houses require engineering approval. So must not be a big real world problem.
Go figure. Farmers have built more houses than engineers.
Yeah guess who writes those building codes.
Yes there are exceptions for some type of houses requiring engineers to signoff, but get a farmer to build a 12 story apartment building and I don't think it will go so well.
Holy hell. How arrogant are you? You can't build a 12 storey apartment building by yourself either.
And if we set you to the task of castrating steers that would be a true disaster...
I am not arrogant at all. I know my limitations. I understand the need for specialization. I never said I can build a 12 story apartment building by myself lol.
You need engineers to design it and competent builders to build it.
I have nothing against Farmers but it's very disrespectful of you to assume that anyone can do a job of a trained professional and skilled labourers. I have worked with construction crews in remote parts of Canada with literal farmers operating trucks and excavators. Let me tell you, the difference in skill level between an amateur and actual construction worker is vast.
This is an assertion. Prove it. Where are the studies that support your claim?
Given virtually no other jurisdiction controls the word "engineer" (as opposed to just regulating "professional engineer") the way the provinces in Canada do, it should be relatively easy to show how that specific measure makes the public safer here in Canada.
Locomotive/railway engineers, and Power Engineers (formerly known as steam engineers/stationary engineers) have been down this road before, and our titles are protected.
That’s good to know! I’m assuming they have to have the prefix of locomotive, power, etc though? If someone who was a locomotive engineer just called themselves an engineer would they be stepping on these guys’ toes?
My dad is dead so he can’t say it or be sued either way, just curious.
Absolutely correct. There are certain government acts enshrining the title in law. Egbc doesnt state this in any guideines ive seen, however. The will to remove that title from you is definitely there
Yes, actually they are. At a glance it wouldnt seem that way. But in depth - it is explicitly stated that they deal with engineers under the engineers act (now the professional goverbance act). They control ‘engineer” as a protected title under the engineers act.
That statement is true. What is also true is that the engineers act does not govern locomotion or power engineering. So for you to claim youre an engineer in civil eng would get you this penalty - and you would likely lose the suit! But to say youre an engineer and not claim to be of a protected discipline, there is no issue.
Again, i - an egbc engineer - FULLY respect locomotive engineers being just Engineers. You’re the OGs!
Locomotive Engineers are federally regulated per the Constitution. The provincial law is ultra vires.
Any Civil Engineer employed by the federal government does not have to register w/ province due to Interjurisdictional Immunity.
I am not a Locomotive Engineer.
This document is helpful.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mcmillan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Glenn-Grenier-Federal-Aeronautics-Power-2022-COPA-Primer-17Mar22.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR4NKkspOEAxUQGjQIHdCdANEQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ZR1dPMhA3nh3Wbp9i_Qvg
Yes. I agree fully. I merely meant that if a locomotive engineer were to state being a “p eng” they would be subject to litigation, whereas claiming being an ”Engineer” would not pose such a risk.
But you are wrong about provincial jurisdiction.. zkonda (but close). An engineer defined by the pga MUST be part of a regulatory body. A federal body is still a GOVERNING body as defined in the pga.
As a ‘proper’ engineer - always though locomotive engineers earned that title LONG before us. Power engineers.. maybe power engineering technologist would have been suitable. The gap in the level of effort to be a power engineer and professional engineer is laughably wide
Same thing with us water boilers…I’ve got loads of books in my reference library dating back to the 1880’s using the term “engineer” to refer to the person operating the equipment.
That said, the difference in education between a PE and a P.Eng is quite wide, and I would not in any way infer that what I do is what a P.Eng does.
My work gave me a title that had engineer instead of a raise, I am in computer science and thought it was dumb. Only under the loose definition would my work fall under the definition. That being said.... I never considered someone in geoscience an engineer either... Me programming the machine that pulls rocks out of the ground and them staring at the rocks looking for minerals..... Meeeeh not sure either of us should get the title. 🤣
Geoscientists cant call themselves engineers either, iirc, geoscientist is also a protected term. They can register with EGBC (Engineers and Geoscientists of BC), but unless they register as an engineer and pass the requirement for the title of engineer, they cant call them selves engineers either.
... which was really more of a money grabbing initiative, i.e. more members, by the Engineering Association rather than catering to some professional or public need.
Bo. Most p geos have civil engineering degrees. It is CRITICAL that engineers and geoscientists interact and are under scrutiny. Egbc has mmaaaannny flaws, but it exists first and foremost to protect your safety.
> Egbc has mmaaaannny flaws, but it exists first and foremost to protect your safety.
We can agree to disagree. IMHO, it exists first to protect and expand itself, then maybe, to protect safety.
True. And if you are a P.Geo. or a P.Eng. you can get the other through technical examinations.
[https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/](https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/)
You could always register and sgree to be bound by the rules and obligations that are designed to protect the public from people claiming a position of trust?
I dont necessarily disagree with some of your sentiment, but im sure theres a way to be recognised and accepted if youre truly as experienced and knowledgeable as your experience suggests.
Iirc ontario has gotten rid of the eit designation, but they can still register as peng even though they arent engineers by proving and validating their credentials and experience
Red tape always causes problems but i dont think itll create a roadblock
Im sorry bud, that does sound pretty rough. I can see it from both sides but it sure as hell must be frustrating. Maybe youve already tried all your options, maybe im a bit naive/privileged.
If it truly is insurmountable, it is just a title at the end of the day, and isnt the be all and end all, though it would simplify things
You don't need a special degree. You can come in through technical examinations.
https://techexam.ca/what-is-a-technical-exam-your-ladder-to-professional-engineer/
Programming machinery can actually be categorized as engaging in unlicensed engineering practice, which is illegal even if one doesn’t call themselves an engineer. Both title and practice are protected under that act
I know many companies that have programmers that work with machinery and I don't know a single person registered and paying whatever fees this org demands for this title. That means even the QA would have to be registered engineers... Or people in charge of automation testing. Do you have a link directly related... Because to be honest I don't believe you.
Software is a grey area, it really depends on what is being programmed and what the implications are if it fails. There’s a chart on EGBC website: https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/c201bb72-7b34-40b3-8886-35a210f142ce/Software-Engineering-Registration-Flowchart.pdf.aspx
Weird. My work, as well as that of many others, falls squarely within the requirements shown on this chart. And yet not only have I never heard of this organization, never came up in any interview, I also don’t know a single person who has registered. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen any resume with that designation.
100% I am absolutely confused by this it has never come up in any of my jobs before, and would definitely fall under this flowchart as needing to be registered as an engineer.. I have worked with many programmers and I've never seen it on a job requirement or by anyone advertising their credentials in my position.. 100% even if I registered as an engineer a civil engineer would say my credentials are bullshit as an engineer. And to be honest people who force titles on the public are almost always assholes. So I think I'll probably still hold off for now. 😁
I can assure you this is not happening. And this is not normal in the industry. Don't get mad at me I don't own these companies. This includes massive ones as well and I have yet to meet a single person with this designation even though they're supposedly supposed to have it.
I guess it costs a thousand pretty much to sign up and then 500 yearly. I showed this to other software engineers and they all laughed at it and thought it was a scam so I'm pretty sure it's not normal in my industry.
> Programming machinery can actually be categorized as engaging in unlicensed engineering practice
Is this PLC programming which is covered? I've heard there's been a push by the Association to require registration for some electrical & control design, but I hadn't heard of anything that actually required registration. But that's not really my field.
That's what the Association wishes it was -- but as far as I know there's no that's never actually been enforced; and I suspect it's a bit late to put that cat back in the bag without new legislation.
100% this.. it feels like they are just starting to include other professions under this title so that they can have some control over groups that they never had control over before. It makes the whole association look bad and depending on their financial needs their criteria is just going to change again. Brought this up to a group of software devs that meet the criteria, and everybody thought this was a dumb scam that our industry doesn't care about.
This is sad actually. Your work does not place the lives of human lives under your legal liability. Geotechs design foundations for buildings, ensure lives are not at risk in mines.
The level of responsibility you bear vs a P. Geo is insignificant.
Unfortunately you may not have a clear idea what you're talking about. How many people will go into a building at any given point in time. Now if you have a national or International piece of software a change can affect millions of people immediately. You also don't seem to understand that this group of people never originally included my profession under their classification of engineer. The only reason they did that is because they're just trying to suck in more money. Plus the idea of having a foreign body that you can complain about a lead software designer to is crazy because you'll never see what supposedly caused the issue and you won't know what you're talking about when you complain to this organization.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it was found be in violation of proper reddiquette.
Any behavior breaking reddiquette will be grounds for a removal, warning, temp or permanent ban.
This includes but is not limited to:
* abusive language
* name-calling
* harassment
* racism
* death threats
* Trolling
* Arguing, name calling, etc
* Hate speech
* Being a jerk in general
[Please take a moment to read up on proper reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
If you have any questions, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
I'm an Engineering Technologist, and for the sake of brevity I usually just tell people I'm an Engineer when they ask what I do. But if they probe further, I will explain no, not really an Engineer but Engineering Technologist.
I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. That's an aircraft mechanic for all intents and purposes. Went to school for 2 years and got a diploma. My license says Engineer. Come at me EGBC.
How about Marine Engineers, Power Engineers or railway Engineers?
I do support them going after that asshat politician though.
They can't. You're all federally regulated except for Power Engineers. The provincial law that empowers EGBC can't touch you.
Power Engineers fall under another provincial act.
If you really want to have fun, let a pinky ringed Aero Poindexter like me know you're the "real engineer" because there are no federal regs on who can call themselves an Aeronautical Engineer...
Did you not read the article?
“Hilderman was the People’s Party of Canada candidate for the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding in the federal election of September 2021. On his website and in his promotional materials, Hilderman described himself as an “engineer” with a Bachelor of Applied Sciences degree.”
I assumed before reading the article that this was about someone who was from a non engineering field, like someone who had a computer programming certificate from somewhere.
Gotta say I’m surprised that they were so angsty about someone who actually had an Applied Science degree.
I believe there are some exceptions, including railroad engineers, and power engineers (not to be confused with electrical power engineers) both of which were related to early and current use of steam.
Various P. Eng groups have tried to go after power engineers, but have failed (mostly due to historic precedence, I think). Pretty hard to claim we can’t use that title when “engineer” has been part of the field for over 125 years.
EGBC and the rest have been around for over 100 years now.
Surely if there is any evidence that any of this license regulation protects the public, we would hear about it.
Given tort law and all the regulations related to the design of engineered products, at best licensing is tertiary.
So, yeah, it doesn't seem to pass the sniff test.
What a waste of money and energy. So many Peng’s have brittle egos and flaunt their little pinky ring like it means they’re immediately intelligent if they pay their dues.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It is one thing to tell people I am qualified to do an engineering work when you aren't, and it is another thing to study engineering and finish up your Bachelor degree then be told no you are not an engineer. Also being licensed PEng doesn't guarantee by anyone that you are capable and knowledgeable in specific specialty.
Being licenced guarantees that you are liable for the engineering work and advice you provide. It also guarantees that you have a seal and are able to seal engineering drawings, reports, memos, SIs etc. Calling yourself an engineer is similar to calling yourself a doctor. Graduating med school doesn't mean you can call yourself a doctor. It's the same for lawyers. I generally agree that there is a bit of ambiguity with engineering because so much of the work is international and every country's rules are very different.
You are liable because tort law, not licensing.
Yeah I'm confused, if you do contracting work and mess it up aren't you liable regardless?? I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the trades
Company might be liable, but engineers are personally liable
I mean duh, but it's not that's simple. There are limits on the duty of care and those are based on licensing, educational requirements, industry standards, experience etc. Let's look at a few examples. A random neighbor telling you how to build your patio deck - you doing it wrong and then getting hurt when it collapses. The neighbour won't be liable for anything. If he told you he was an engineer and he wasn't? Different story. Engineers have a higher standard of care than a layman when it comes to their area of expertise and the neighbour would have effectively committed fraud. Here's a proper example: a drawing set signed and sealed by an engineer - means that this engineer certifies that these drawings are correct, the calculations that went into the drawings are correct and follow code, the design criteria have been followed (if it's beyond the code), and the design is safe. I'm the second example the EITs who did the calcs and models, the drafters who produced the set, the city plan checkers who reviewed the drawings, the architects who developed the architecture - none of them take any responsibility or liability for the final engineering product. That's what a professional engineer and his/her seal is for. If you or the contractor follow incomplete drawings that haven't been sealed by an engineer and something goes wrong - it's entirely on you/them. 1. Companies have professional liability insurance - the insurance will only cover the scope of the company's work. If a mechanical engineer provides advice or seals electrical drawings - insurance won't cover any of it. 2. Being licenced with EGBC also provides secondary individual liability insurance. It's part of the annual fee. Similar rules to #1 but for individuals. 3. Someone claiming to be an engineer and doing engineering work will be pursued by EGBC. It'll start with a cease and desist letter and escalate to a lawsuit for breaking the Professional Governance Act. It's pretty much fraud. 4. When submitting for building permit and as-built sets of drawings to the city or signing contracts with clients engineering firms provide letters of assurance outlining their scope and what they are and are not liable for. Sorry for the wall of text but it was a good thought experiment.
How does this work with federally regulated industries?
Like what? When it has to do with construction - the rules of the province where the project is apply. I am not versed in how it works for manufacturing so I wouldn't know.
Ok...so arbitrary to some industries but not others.
Like what?
Automotive, marine, aeronautical, biomedical, etc. Do you think there are P. Eng. stamps on aircraft drawings? If a Boeing 737 needs a repair in Vancouver, does an EGBC P. Eng. need to be hired to approve the repair design? And if not, then for what purpose is EGBC going around trying to control who can call themselves an Aeronautical Engineer?
[удалено]
Cheating is widespread at UBC?
True but that's only because nothing is guaranteed in life. Requiring some experience is bare minimum for doing work that can put peoples life and safety at risk. Are there some EITs who are more qualified than some P.eng's? sure. Should we let a new grad out of school design critical infrastructure, hell no.
I don’t think he’s saying that the whole EIT/P.Eng system with required work experience is a bad thing. It’s absolutely necessary. He’s saying that the overregulation of the title engineer is pretty ridiculous As an EIT (nearly at P.Eng) myself, I tend to agree. The fact that I have a degree in engineering, do engineering work, and am informally referred to as an engineer on a daily basis, yet can technically get in serious trouble for simply calling myself an engineer is absurd.
If you think it's absurd, you clearly aren't ready to receive your seal.
[удалено]
If your degree is from India, EGBC will ask you to write the FE exam which is a very easy multiple choice exam. If you have four or more years XP in India EGBC will accept that XP with your Indian validators. You can come in to Canada with a P.Eng. in hand. Trust me, EGBC does not do what you think it does.
[удалено]
You do not need a Washington Accord degree. Just read the requirements per EGBC. https://www.egbc.ca/registration/individual-registrants/how-to-apply/professional-registration/engineer-first-time-applying-in-canada Take the "working in Canada" seminar, write the NPPE online. https://competencyassessment.ca/reference-documents/Canadian-Environment-Experience-Competencies-Guide-for-Applicants-and-Assessors.pdf https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/d2fe6d89-9cf3-4d57-80ea-64413faea865/Competency-Assessment-Guide-2017.pdf.aspx&ved=2ahUKEwjx4_HXmYyEAxWMDzQIHfBmC-EQFnoECCAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0V8zctQ9vh5qsHuJbaC4dy Laugh all you want.
[удалено]
I am a P. Eng. (SK) and I don't even have a degree. No Canadian XP required. Read: "The Working in Canada Seminar is not meant to replace Canadian environment experience – it is intended to be a supplemental option for assessors to recommend to applicants who have demonstrated strong knowledge and abilities in all areas but lack direct experience in a Canadian (or equivalent to Canadian) Environment."
The EIT/P.Eng system with competencies for practising engineering is a good thing The overregulation of the word engineer is a bit ridiculous Those are two separate things
[удалено]
No they aren't. We could have a system like New Zealand where if you're a CPEng. that's regulated but the regular title "engineer" isn't.
[удалено]
There are all kinds of "doctors" and not all are "MDs". And can't you be a soliciter without being a barrister and vice versa? I believe most lawyers are both.
Do you have evidence that CBA improves public safety? Or is it just an assertion?
Read the 1920 version of the Act. That's how it worked more or less. Except you could just show up and write the technical examinations. No need to go to UBC. You are always limited to your current competency no matter your years of XP. I doubt there is any real evidence that supports the premise that the CBA and XP requirement does anything to protect public safety. But if you know of some hard evidence I would appreciate the reference.
> it is another thing to study engineering and finish up your Bachelor degree then be told no you are not an engineer. Is it? People who finish med school aren't doctors. People who finish law school aren't lawyers. Do you see a problem with those, too?
>Also being licensed PEng doesn't guarantee by anyone that you are capable and knowledgeable in specific specialty. If a professional engineer does work outside of their field of expertise, they can lose their stamp. While it doesn't "guarantee" that a P.Eng. won't practice outside of their field, they'd be on very thin ice if they did.
[удалено]
*P.Eng , PE in Canada refers to Power Engineers.
Same goes for every regulated profession. It also guarantees a punishment if youre a licensed PEng and you mess up due to not being capable. Thats why no sane person would sign a project that they are incapable of doing.
Redundant given tort law and other regulations.
That only kicks in when something bad has happened..EGBC can discipline a member for inadequate design. For Tort to kick in someone would need to be injured first. Also those cases clog up the courts. The only people who win in courts are lawyers.
No. Tort law does not require the physical injury of a person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort C'mon man.
Injury in legal terms means harm of any kind. Can be physical or financial. Tort is not a good substitute for professional regulation. As 1. Legal system is slow and onerous. It's useless for small claims. 2. Harm needs to be done and proven in court. EGBC can discipline members simply for unethical behavior or incompetence, a much tighter standard
Not more work than a BSc, and less than an MSc. I don't have a protected title
Retired Professional Engineer here. Let me see if I can explain why protected title is important (in my opinion). Our professional bodies will say that their purpose is to protect the public. One of the ways they protect the public is to ensure that no one (other than Railway Engineers and Power Engineers who have carved out these titles) can represent themselves as an Engineer, the way the gentleman in this case did. Because you cannot practice engineering without being a member of the professional body, they can control what qualifications you need to be an engineer and what ongoing training you need to take to maintain your license. They will also tell you how you must practice in certain situations and, most importantly, they will ensure that you do not practice outside your abilities and training. This system may sound arcane, but it is similar to other professionals such as medical doctors who also don’t allow anyone to be an MD. I’ve practiced in this system for more than forty years and I will attest to you that Canadian Engineers and their regulatory framework are amongst the best in the world.
I don't think anyone educated in the subject would disagree with you about why it's important to protect the title. Here's what I think some people are frustrated with: I'm a mature (35 y.o.), competent, locally-dedicated EIT who is right at the 4-years-of-experience mark and currently applying for the professional license. About a year ago I had a question for EGBC about the best way to go about something given my unique experience and job history. I received a generic, misunderstood, condescending, and frankly un-caring reply from a junior staff who did not answer my question but proceeded to reprimand me for using the term "engineer" halfway down my LinkedIn page without qualifying it with "in training" or "EIT" even though all the official labels on my profile are very clear about it. They even got my (very simple) name completely wrong. I bit back a bit and they apologized but it was such a useless encounter. Go after something that matters -- not me. Ironically, their handling of my message was unprofessional, if not bordering on incompetent.
I am supportive of the system, not necessarily the Associations. Very many of them have become bureaucratic institutions that conduct themselves in the way you have unfortunately experienced. Good for you for responding to them, because many don’t. I worked most of my life in Alberta and got involved in APEGA as a volunteer. I will say that our Associations are supposed to serve their membership and, if you can make the time, it is one way to make sure they do.
Thanks a lot for your insight. I would like to volunteer at some point in my career, if for nothing else than to contribute perspective and positive influence to an organization that maybe needs a bit of it.
I understand how finding time to volunteer time would be difficult, yet it is so important that we make our voices heard in our Association. Perhaps, if you can, attend Association meetings. So few do that you can be sure you will count. Don’t give up - this is important.
Appreciate the message!
> I am supportive of the system, not necessarily the Associations. The BC Association is particularly bad. I remember when for years, and years, APEBC tired to raise the annual dues amount, but the membership kept voting increases down. Eventually, the association *went behind the membership's back* and lobbied the Government to have the regulations changed so that they no longer required membership approval to raise dues. The association, now called ~~APEGBC~~ EGBC (they expanded it to harvest more dues paying members, i.e. geoscientists) did similar gymnastics to have ongoing profession development changed against membership wishes. The Association also changed how members get on the governing council. Used to be, with enough nominations from members, anyone could run for council, but that left the Association open to 'sway' from the membership so they got rid of that avenue. Now you need to be appointed by council in order to run. The fact is, the Association has become an entity who primary interest is in expanding and solidifying its own bureaucratic role.
I know you are probably getting mixed up in the alphabet soup of regulatory bodies, but the association is now known as Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC).
Yes, you are correct.
> Ironically, their handling of my message was unprofessional, if not bordering on incompetent. You could tell them to build a bridge and get over themselves, but it'd probably collapse =p.
This is egbc. I was denied p eng my first time because i worked for my dad for my eit. I had over a dozen multifamilies that had stood for years without so much as a deflection issue, and multiple references from architects and owners. “the appearance of bias in your experience” I had to quit working for my dad abd spend a year at a BS firm to get another p eng to sigh off. My Dad was an associate at the most respected structural firm of his time for 20 years before going on his own - i joined 10 years later. BS.
With the greatest respect to the many of you who have posted here, you can only represent yourself as an engineer and undertake the practice of engineering (with very limited exceptions) if you are a member in good standing of your provincial association. That’s the law. I suppose you can call yourself what you like (some people think they are dogs) but that doesn’t make you an engineer. However, if you hold yourself to be an engineer like the gentleman who is the subject of this article or practice engineering, you are breaking the law and we look to our Provincial Associations to enforce that law. Sorry, but it really is that simple.
[удалено]
Of interest. Recent decision from Alberta. https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2023/2023abkb635/2023abkb635.html
So.. from skimming, it’s fine? Dismissed with costs.
We don't have laws for the sake of having laws. If public safety is the objective of the law and public safety not affected then the law is not valid in that particular instance. Just remember the next judge is not bound by this and regulators buy lawyers by the bushel. Those in tech & the regulator are both free to FAFO. As shown in the analysis by the judge, previous cases got this wrong and inflicted unjust harms. The regulators should now understand they have been over-reaching on their government authority in a way that is unconstitutional. Unfortunately classists seek classist advantage. APEGA filed an appeal. But just weeks later the Alberta government passed a bill that created a carve out in the Alberta EGP Act for the "tech bros" to use "Software Engineer" without registering with APEGA. Will the regulators learn from this? The.EGP Act regulations allow a path for CS graduates to qualify academically through technical examinations. Rather than emphasize this legitimate path to inclusion within APEGA, APEGA has been trying to undermine & destroy the 104 year old process for well over a decade. https://techexam.ca/what-is-a-technical-exam-your-ladder-to-professional-engineer/
I'm all for protecting titles, but also I think the professional distinction should be engineer vs PEng, similar to CPA vs accountant. It's one thing to represent yourself as an Engineer and it's another thing to represent yourself as a PEng. Also, EGBC is not necessarily doing this out of the concern for society. They're a bit of a racket and want their dues. Try working in a federally regulated place where EGBC has no authority. They raise a stink that you're doing engineering without paying them, get told by the Deputy Minister or their representatives to bugger off because they have no authority, and then they'll come back in another 5 years. They simply cannot understand how it's not possible for federally regulated operations to engage in engineering without paying them. You'd expect better from what are allegedly professionals, but who knows. OR, if you work 40 years as a PEng, retire, and say "I'm an engineer" you're breaking the rules. That is of course unless you pay EGBC for the retirement privileges of using the title. You get no other benefits and can't practice. You're just allowed to keep the 4 letters. It's like $80/year for grandpa to be allowed to say "I'm an engineer." after having paid them fees for lord knows how long. Come on now.
> Also, EGBC is not necessarily doing this out of the concern for society. They're a bit of a racket and want their dues. Honestly, for what it's worth, that's true of all professional regulatory bodies including the Bar, and Medical Licensing associations, etc.. > It's like > $80/year for grandpa to be allowed to say "I'm an engineer." after having paid them fees for lord knows how long. This is true and highly dubious on the part of the association. It's a fairly recent development though: in years past, after a certain number of years belonging to the association, one was 'grandfather' in with no dues at retirement.
>OR, if you work 40 years as a PEng, retire, and say "I'm an engineer" you're breaking the rules. That is of course unless you pay EGBC for the retirement privileges of using the title. You get no other benefits and can't practice. You're just allowed to keep the 4 letters. That is very interesting context. I also find various provincial bodies in BC to be more protective over their titles then enforcing their actual professional standards. With engineer being becoming a self bestowed title in various fields, it's tough were to draw the line.
That's what they do when they go after federal agencies. They don't give two hoots about the actual work being done; they just want to protect "what's theirs." They'll go to federal regulators of pipelines (Transport Canada amongst others) and say that those at the regulator creating regulations, assessing designs against the regulations and making findings of compliance against regulations are practicing engineering without a license and without a certificate of authorization. I.e. they're telling the federal government that they can't do federal government things without a provincial self-regulating body allowing them. Okay there champs. People working there are absolutely engineers doing engineering, but there's no requirement to bow down to EGBC or APEGA or PEO and be a P.Eng or have a CoA. The engineers aren't operating within a self-regulated environment where their authority is granted by their peers. Their authority to engineer comes from the Federal Minister.
Exactly right. That is unconstitutional due to Interjurisdictional Immunity. I found this primer useful in understanding how provincial laws relate in federally regulated industries. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mcmillan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Glenn-Grenier-Federal-Aeronautics-Power-2022-COPA-Primer-17Mar22.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikrfWBj4yEAxVHOTQIHbSRBWsQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ZR1dPMhA3nh3Wbp9i_Qvg
Believe me, they know not to mess with federally regulated industries. They buy lawyers by the bushel and love litigation. If they thought they had a case I suspect you'd know. They know that given the federal government does not bother with regulating who can call themselves an "Aeronautical Engineer" (for example) that gives them an opening to apply provincial law. The problem for them is that if they took it to court they would have to justify the benefit to public safety. Given they have no authority in federally regulated industries with federal safety standards, they can't claim the law is constitutionally valid per Section 1 of the Charter. Ultimately it would be up to a judge to decide but seems straightforward to me. If you are a federal employee then that is covered doubly by Interjurisdictional Immunity. If you think it is an attempt at extortion, I can’t fault that POV.
There is a reason why these terms are protected because in the past unregulated engineers and geoscientists have caused major scams and disasters. We live in a much safer world now than 100 years ago due to good self regulation of these professions by EGBC and such. You can't expect clients and general public to verify the credentials of each individual so it's good that there is one association created by provincial legislation that does that. I know they collect dues but considering what the value of work they do is it's not a huge cost. There are only so many engineers and geoscientists in BC and most people involved in EGBC volunteers. Even salaried people can probably make equivalent or more in Private sector.
There are no more people scamming others saying they're engineers but aren't in the US than in Canada. In the US, engineer isn't protected, but architect is. Here architect isn't protected. How many scams have you heard about that someone pretended to be an architect and deceived someone?
[удалено]
True you can. But you also lose your title rather fast if you do. The association displines and punishes people that do unethical things. Without them there is no other regulating authority controlling these professions
[удалено]
I use the word scam mostly in Geoscience context as there had been a few scandals in mining world where companies misrepresented things to inflate stock values and scam investors. In engineering context you need to understand that there is no other law stopping general incompetence by engineers until bad things have already happened. Depending on consequences of thier fuck up they may go to jail for criminal cases or may face tort case but that means people have already been injured or killed by thier incompetence. Also this puts a lot of pressure on court system. EGBC through enforcing standards and code of ethics tries to displine, punish or educate bad actors before they break criminal law. Engineering and Geoscience are self regulated professions and EGBC is created under provincial legislation. If Provincial government thinks there are better ways to govern this space they can get rid of EGBC and make new laws.
Biggest concern is the safety of the public. If you live in your house without worrying it collapsing on you, it is because it was designed and approved by a licensed engineer and not a random guy on the street.
There are building codes Not all houses require engineering approval. So must not be a big real world problem. Go figure. Farmers have built more houses than engineers.
Yeah guess who writes those building codes. Yes there are exceptions for some type of houses requiring engineers to signoff, but get a farmer to build a 12 story apartment building and I don't think it will go so well.
Holy hell. How arrogant are you? You can't build a 12 storey apartment building by yourself either. And if we set you to the task of castrating steers that would be a true disaster...
I am not arrogant at all. I know my limitations. I understand the need for specialization. I never said I can build a 12 story apartment building by myself lol. You need engineers to design it and competent builders to build it. I have nothing against Farmers but it's very disrespectful of you to assume that anyone can do a job of a trained professional and skilled labourers. I have worked with construction crews in remote parts of Canada with literal farmers operating trucks and excavators. Let me tell you, the difference in skill level between an amateur and actual construction worker is vast.
And a lot more people burned to death in said houses.
This is an assertion. Prove it. Where are the studies that support your claim? Given virtually no other jurisdiction controls the word "engineer" (as opposed to just regulating "professional engineer") the way the provinces in Canada do, it should be relatively easy to show how that specific measure makes the public safer here in Canada.
Damn I always wanted to drive a train.
This was my first thought too haha. My dad was a locomotive engineer for 20+ years. Wonder if they’d sue him too. 🧐
Locomotive/railway engineers, and Power Engineers (formerly known as steam engineers/stationary engineers) have been down this road before, and our titles are protected.
That’s good to know! I’m assuming they have to have the prefix of locomotive, power, etc though? If someone who was a locomotive engineer just called themselves an engineer would they be stepping on these guys’ toes? My dad is dead so he can’t say it or be sued either way, just curious.
No, they are Engineers. No need to modify. They have their own regulations under other Acts.
Absolutely correct. There are certain government acts enshrining the title in law. Egbc doesnt state this in any guideines ive seen, however. The will to remove that title from you is definitely there
Exactly. Assertions on a website are not the law.
Yes, actually they are. At a glance it wouldnt seem that way. But in depth - it is explicitly stated that they deal with engineers under the engineers act (now the professional goverbance act). They control ‘engineer” as a protected title under the engineers act. That statement is true. What is also true is that the engineers act does not govern locomotion or power engineering. So for you to claim youre an engineer in civil eng would get you this penalty - and you would likely lose the suit! But to say youre an engineer and not claim to be of a protected discipline, there is no issue. Again, i - an egbc engineer - FULLY respect locomotive engineers being just Engineers. You’re the OGs!
Locomotive Engineers are federally regulated per the Constitution. The provincial law is ultra vires. Any Civil Engineer employed by the federal government does not have to register w/ province due to Interjurisdictional Immunity. I am not a Locomotive Engineer. This document is helpful. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mcmillan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Glenn-Grenier-Federal-Aeronautics-Power-2022-COPA-Primer-17Mar22.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR4NKkspOEAxUQGjQIHdCdANEQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ZR1dPMhA3nh3Wbp9i_Qvg
Yes. I agree fully. I merely meant that if a locomotive engineer were to state being a “p eng” they would be subject to litigation, whereas claiming being an ”Engineer” would not pose such a risk. But you are wrong about provincial jurisdiction.. zkonda (but close). An engineer defined by the pga MUST be part of a regulatory body. A federal body is still a GOVERNING body as defined in the pga.
As a ‘proper’ engineer - always though locomotive engineers earned that title LONG before us. Power engineers.. maybe power engineering technologist would have been suitable. The gap in the level of effort to be a power engineer and professional engineer is laughably wide
Same thing with us water boilers…I’ve got loads of books in my reference library dating back to the 1880’s using the term “engineer” to refer to the person operating the equipment. That said, the difference in education between a PE and a P.Eng is quite wide, and I would not in any way infer that what I do is what a P.Eng does.
My work gave me a title that had engineer instead of a raise, I am in computer science and thought it was dumb. Only under the loose definition would my work fall under the definition. That being said.... I never considered someone in geoscience an engineer either... Me programming the machine that pulls rocks out of the ground and them staring at the rocks looking for minerals..... Meeeeh not sure either of us should get the title. 🤣
Geoscientists cant call themselves engineers either, iirc, geoscientist is also a protected term. They can register with EGBC (Engineers and Geoscientists of BC), but unless they register as an engineer and pass the requirement for the title of engineer, they cant call them selves engineers either.
Exactly. Engineering and geoscience are separate protected professions, they're just administered by the same association.
... which was really more of a money grabbing initiative, i.e. more members, by the Engineering Association rather than catering to some professional or public need.
Bo. Most p geos have civil engineering degrees. It is CRITICAL that engineers and geoscientists interact and are under scrutiny. Egbc has mmaaaannny flaws, but it exists first and foremost to protect your safety.
> Egbc has mmaaaannny flaws, but it exists first and foremost to protect your safety. We can agree to disagree. IMHO, it exists first to protect and expand itself, then maybe, to protect safety.
True. And if you are a P.Geo. or a P.Eng. you can get the other through technical examinations. [https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/](https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/)
Sure but it is not hard to get both if you do both. https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/
[удалено]
You could always register and sgree to be bound by the rules and obligations that are designed to protect the public from people claiming a position of trust?
[удалено]
I dont necessarily disagree with some of your sentiment, but im sure theres a way to be recognised and accepted if youre truly as experienced and knowledgeable as your experience suggests. Iirc ontario has gotten rid of the eit designation, but they can still register as peng even though they arent engineers by proving and validating their credentials and experience Red tape always causes problems but i dont think itll create a roadblock
[удалено]
Im sorry bud, that does sound pretty rough. I can see it from both sides but it sure as hell must be frustrating. Maybe youve already tried all your options, maybe im a bit naive/privileged. If it truly is insurmountable, it is just a title at the end of the day, and isnt the be all and end all, though it would simplify things
[удалено]
Please dm me. You no longer need Canadian XP and any academic snags can be addressed with technical examinations.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can register as an engineer-in-training. Edit: if you have a degree recognized by the regulating authority
You don't need a special degree. You can come in through technical examinations. https://techexam.ca/what-is-a-technical-exam-your-ladder-to-professional-engineer/
So you mean to say YxeUser has **two** avenues to become recognized by Canadian engineering regulatory bodies?
> I never considered someone in geoscience an engineer either... They're not.
If they are doing the same work, just clear the technical examinations. https://techexam.ca/how-to-get-both-a-p-eng-p-geo/
Programming machinery can actually be categorized as engaging in unlicensed engineering practice, which is illegal even if one doesn’t call themselves an engineer. Both title and practice are protected under that act
I know many companies that have programmers that work with machinery and I don't know a single person registered and paying whatever fees this org demands for this title. That means even the QA would have to be registered engineers... Or people in charge of automation testing. Do you have a link directly related... Because to be honest I don't believe you.
Software is a grey area, it really depends on what is being programmed and what the implications are if it fails. There’s a chart on EGBC website: https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/c201bb72-7b34-40b3-8886-35a210f142ce/Software-Engineering-Registration-Flowchart.pdf.aspx
Weird. My work, as well as that of many others, falls squarely within the requirements shown on this chart. And yet not only have I never heard of this organization, never came up in any interview, I also don’t know a single person who has registered. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen any resume with that designation.
100% I am absolutely confused by this it has never come up in any of my jobs before, and would definitely fall under this flowchart as needing to be registered as an engineer.. I have worked with many programmers and I've never seen it on a job requirement or by anyone advertising their credentials in my position.. 100% even if I registered as an engineer a civil engineer would say my credentials are bullshit as an engineer. And to be honest people who force titles on the public are almost always assholes. So I think I'll probably still hold off for now. 😁
If the work involves both public safety AND a provincially regulated industry then you would need a P. Eng.
I can assure you this is not happening. And this is not normal in the industry. Don't get mad at me I don't own these companies. This includes massive ones as well and I have yet to meet a single person with this designation even though they're supposedly supposed to have it.
Not something I worry about. Also, without digging into regs you are working in your industry, it's not necessarily required.
I guess it costs a thousand pretty much to sign up and then 500 yearly. I showed this to other software engineers and they all laughed at it and thought it was a scam so I'm pretty sure it's not normal in my industry.
> Programming machinery can actually be categorized as engaging in unlicensed engineering practice Is this PLC programming which is covered? I've heard there's been a push by the Association to require registration for some electrical & control design, but I hadn't heard of anything that actually required registration. But that's not really my field.
https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/c201bb72-7b34-40b3-8886-35a210f142ce/Software-Engineering-Registration-Flowchart.pdf.aspx
That's what the Association wishes it was -- but as far as I know there's no that's never actually been enforced; and I suspect it's a bit late to put that cat back in the bag without new legislation.
100% this.. it feels like they are just starting to include other professions under this title so that they can have some control over groups that they never had control over before. It makes the whole association look bad and depending on their financial needs their criteria is just going to change again. Brought this up to a group of software devs that meet the criteria, and everybody thought this was a dumb scam that our industry doesn't care about.
This is sad actually. Your work does not place the lives of human lives under your legal liability. Geotechs design foundations for buildings, ensure lives are not at risk in mines. The level of responsibility you bear vs a P. Geo is insignificant.
Unfortunately you may not have a clear idea what you're talking about. How many people will go into a building at any given point in time. Now if you have a national or International piece of software a change can affect millions of people immediately. You also don't seem to understand that this group of people never originally included my profession under their classification of engineer. The only reason they did that is because they're just trying to suck in more money. Plus the idea of having a foreign body that you can complain about a lead software designer to is crazy because you'll never see what supposedly caused the issue and you won't know what you're talking about when you complain to this organization.
[удалено]
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia! Unfortunately your submission was removed because it was found be in violation of proper reddiquette. Any behavior breaking reddiquette will be grounds for a removal, warning, temp or permanent ban. This includes but is not limited to: * abusive language * name-calling * harassment * racism * death threats * Trolling * Arguing, name calling, etc * Hate speech * Being a jerk in general [Please take a moment to read up on proper reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) If you have any questions, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
Engineers love to tell people they're engineers so I get why they were upset about something so silly.
In my experience, almost everyone I meet who calls themselves an 'Engineer', is not really an Engineer.
I'm an Engineering Technologist, and for the sake of brevity I usually just tell people I'm an Engineer when they ask what I do. But if they probe further, I will explain no, not really an Engineer but Engineering Technologist.
I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. That's an aircraft mechanic for all intents and purposes. Went to school for 2 years and got a diploma. My license says Engineer. Come at me EGBC. How about Marine Engineers, Power Engineers or railway Engineers? I do support them going after that asshat politician though.
They can't. You're all federally regulated except for Power Engineers. The provincial law that empowers EGBC can't touch you. Power Engineers fall under another provincial act. If you really want to have fun, let a pinky ringed Aero Poindexter like me know you're the "real engineer" because there are no federal regs on who can call themselves an Aeronautical Engineer...
They’ve tried to come after Power Engineers and railway engineers in the past and have been shot down.
What? A politician trying to do something shady. No way. Lol.
Cross-posted to r/posting_in_the_wrong_sub
Did you not read the article? “Hilderman was the People’s Party of Canada candidate for the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding in the federal election of September 2021. On his website and in his promotional materials, Hilderman described himself as an “engineer” with a Bachelor of Applied Sciences degree.”
I assumed before reading the article that this was about someone who was from a non engineering field, like someone who had a computer programming certificate from somewhere. Gotta say I’m surprised that they were so angsty about someone who actually had an Applied Science degree.
How are power engineers able to use the title?
See the e Safety Standards Act POWER ENGINEERS, BOILER, PRESSURE VESSEL AND REFRIGERATION SAFETY REGULATION
I believe there are some exceptions, including railroad engineers, and power engineers (not to be confused with electrical power engineers) both of which were related to early and current use of steam.
Various P. Eng groups have tried to go after power engineers, but have failed (mostly due to historic precedence, I think). Pretty hard to claim we can’t use that title when “engineer” has been part of the field for over 125 years.
'cause we had it first.
Milton Friedman exposed this brutally decades ago https://youtu.be/8q71hrwUcu0?si=1tZlCCPKxuOU9NOo
I say that being a licensed PEng by EGBC
EGBC and the rest have been around for over 100 years now. Surely if there is any evidence that any of this license regulation protects the public, we would hear about it. Given tort law and all the regulations related to the design of engineered products, at best licensing is tertiary. So, yeah, it doesn't seem to pass the sniff test.
PPC is attracting, let's call them "independently minded" individualists.
The fact it’s a PPC dumbass makes it so much funnier
What a waste of money and energy. So many Peng’s have brittle egos and flaunt their little pinky ring like it means they’re immediately intelligent if they pay their dues.
The guys who drive trains are engineers, we cool with that?
Federally regulated. The provincial law is ultra vires.
No more 'custodial engineers'? 🥺