Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Engineer is a protected term under federal and provincial law here in Canada. As such you must be licensed by the provincial association. The usual requirement is a undergraduate degree in an engineering subject and at least 4 years of experience, a year of which must be in Canada. In your case the role is likely to be defined at telecommunications technician rather than engineer.

I don't mean this with any disrespect but may help you when looking for work.

I assume you are talking about FSW program. If so then the NOC code does not really matter as any skilled work experience counts. What are you scoring on the FSW points calculator?

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...d-workers.html

Bell, Shaw and Telus (defiantly in Alberta and BC but not sure about Manitoba and Saskatchewan)

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Oh, good God, not this crap again. Give it a rest, man.

There is nothing whatsoever in any legislation to prevent anybody calling themselves an engineer. They very specifically can't use the protected terms P.Eng, use a Professional Engineer's seal, or sign off on some very specific categories of engineering drawings, but every software engineer, telecoms engineer, locomotive engineer, etc etc ad nauseam, can continue to call themselves whatever the hell they like and thumb their noses at the protectionist jerkoffs in PEO or the other provincial organizations.

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Without going to off track, No I wont give it a rest.

First off: Section 22 of the Engineers and Geoscntists act of BC (for example). This is not an internal document to APEGBC but an act of provincial parliament.

Prohibition on practice
22 (1) Except as permitted under this Act, an individual or corporation, partnership or other legal entity must not do any of the following:

(a) engage in the practice of professional engineering or professional geoscience;

(b) assume, verbally or otherwise, the title of professional engineer or professional geoscientist;

(c) advertise or use, or permit to be advertised or used, in any manner whatsoever, in connection with the name of the individual, corporation, partnership or other legal entity, or otherwise,

(i) the title of professional engineer or professional geoscientist,

(ii) any word, name, title or designation mentioned in the definition of "practice of professional engineering" or "practice of professional geoscience", or any combination or abbreviation of them, or

(iii) any other word, name, title, designation, descriptive term or statement implying, or calculated to lead any other person to believe, that the individual, corporation, partnership or other legal entity is a professional engineer or professional geoscientist or is ready or entitled to engage in, or is engaged in, the practice of professional engineering or professional geoscience as defined in section 1 (1);



Secondly and more importantly for the OP and others. Most people new to Canada do not understand the different use of title. I have seen numerous posts from people saying they are struggling to find work who are trying to look for engineering jobs in Canada when they are looking for technician or similar jobs. By informing them of the different use of title they can focus there job hunting efforts.

If you want to see examples of legal actions taken against individuals who have contravened the act.
https://www.egbc.ca/Complaints-Disci...d-Use-of-Title

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Where to start?

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER is the protected term. P. Eng, for short. It's set out quite clearly in black and white, several times, in the blurb you have just quoted.

Anybody in any business can call themselves an engineer. The august governing bodies are full of protectionist jerkoffs who do not realize that nobody else IN THE ENTIRE WORLD gives a stuff about their pathetic attempts to prevent somebody using a common word in the English lexicon to describe what they do for a living.

Every. Single. One. of the "enforcement actions" linked from the page you provided (I checked...) relate to individuals using a seal they are not entitled to use, altering documents subsequent to their sign-off by a certified P. Eng, passing themselves off as a P.Eng when they've failed to keep up their membership of the body, or other nefarious practices. NONE of them castigate and individual for calling themselves a network engineer, or software engineer, or telecom engineer, or any other kind of engineer, if that it what they do for a living.

Please stop with the incessant garbage you spout on this subject. You are wrong, and no amount of repeating what you say will make it any less wrong.

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Yes - P.Eng is protected. Not 'Engineer'... and there are many, many job titles that include that term on jobbank, workopolis and indeed and many other websites.


Related job titles: engineer

267 jobs found Software engineers and designers
255 jobs found Mechanical engineers
217 jobs found Civil engineers
195 jobs found Electrical and electronics engineers
139 jobs found Industrial and manufacturing engineers
131 jobs found Power engineers and power systems operators
88 jobs found Computer engineers (except software engineers and designers)
42 jobs found Chemical engineers
34 jobs found Air pilots, flight engineers and flying instructors
27 jobs found data warehouse analyst
21 jobs found sales engineer
18 jobs found Geological engineers
17 jobs found Aerospace engineers
13 jobs found Metallurgical and materials engineers
12 jobs found Mining engineers
10 jobs found Other professional engineers, n.e.c.
7 jobs found Engineer officers, water transport
2 jobs found Petroleum engineers
2 jobs found Railway and yard locomotive engineers
0 jobs found broadcast engineer
0 jobs found chief power engineer
0 jobs found combat engineer
0 jobs found engineer's assistant
0 jobs found foreman/woman, power engineers
0 jobs found forest engineer
0 jobs found human factors engineer
0 jobs found recording engineer
0 jobs found sound engineer
0 jobs found sound mix engineer
0 jobs found steam engineer leader

https://www.jobbank.gc.ca/jobsearch/....submit=Search

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

"engineer:

Someone who relates to the universe in a mathematical but socially inept way.
Optimist: "The glass is half full."
Pessimist: "The glass is half empty."
Engineer: "The glass is twice the size it needs to be."

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Admins please move to new thread if deeded appropriate.

The act prohibits the use of the title " Professional engineer' or any abbreviation or variation as an occupational designation.

Supreme court of BC Injunction No. S086249

https://www.egbc.ca/getmedia/d950d3f...ction.pdf.aspx

Part 2, "..... or representing himself as an "engineer", "professional engineer", "P.E." "P.Eng." or any combination of such terms..."


Precedence has been established, at least in BC, that the use of the term "engineer" is protected.

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

Oh FFS drop it.

Ken Dextras, the plaintiff in the action you cite, had been a member in good standing of the BC association of professional engineers and geoscientists; he was accused (and found guilty in absentia as he chose not to mount a defence) of professional misconduct. It is this that led to the court action that stripped him of the ability to use the P.Eng designation.

He was not trying to "pass himself off" as an engineer. He was, rather, thrown out of the APEGBC.

At no point has any individual ever been prevented from using the term "engineering" to describe what they do for a living, except inasmuch as they have fallen foul of some other regulation of APEGBC or PEO or any of the other provincial bodies first.

I say again: you are dead wrong on this. Acknowledge it and move on.

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

And I disagree with you. If you don't want to engage in a discussion on the matter, based on two different and contrasting view points may I suggest you move on.

A court cannot grant an injunction against you for doing something unless it would be against the law for you to do so.

The supreme court specifically states the plaintiff is not to use the term "Engineer" in addition to "Professional engineer". It matters not one iota what the previous standing of the plaintiff was or ether he chose to defend himself. By using Engineer in quotation marks in their ruling the court is referring to a designated term. by prohibiting him the use of that term they are stating it be to be protected.

As an aside the court did not strip him of his P.Eng. the association did that by removing his license. What the court did was bar him from using titles including 'Engineer'. In addition, a court cannot get involved if someone had merely round foul of an internal regulation. This is a regulation of the association and is governed by the association. A court can only get involved when someone runs foul of the law, such as the engineers and geoscientist act.

The reason you rarely see court action at all, but especially against people who have never been members, is that the associations will first attempt to resolve the issue without court through discussion i.e. a cease and desist letter. This works in the vast majority of cases and no court action is required.

PEO does monitor public sources for use of title and does take action where found. Enforcement

By the way the acts in Alberta, NWT, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec specifically mention and prohibit the title Engineer opposed to relying on common law precedence.
https://www.apega.ca/enforcement/rights/ for example.

The truth is in some provinces the title is restricted specifically by law. In other provinces "professional engineer' or variations and abbreviations are protected and common law precedence has shown 'Engineer' to be one such abbreviation or variation. In some provinces and in some industries it is a grey area which is being determined by ongoing legal challenges.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

'Anyone can build a bridge that'll last forever, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that'll JUST last forever.'

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Wrong.

BC Courts:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/do...resultIndex=25

[18] Subsection 22(1)(c)(ii) prohibits the use of any “word, name, title or designation mentioned in the definition of ‘practice of professional engineering’”. That definition does include a reference to the term "engineering". It might therefore be contended that it would generally prohibit the use of the term "engineering", except by a member.

[19] However, read in context, this use of the word "engineering" is prohibited only in relation to those disciplines named or designated by the council. The latter are the word(s), name(s), title(s) or designation(s) mentioned in the definition of “practice of professional engineering”. I conclude that the construction that I must put upon the language of subsection (ii) is that it prohibits references to a discipline, whether specifically named in the definition of "practice of professional engineering" or designated by the council, in conjunction with the word “engineering”.

[20] I therefore find that the use of the word "engineering" by anyone other than a professional engineer is not generally prohibited by s. 22(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.

[21] I turn now to the question whether the use of the term "engineer" is generally prohibited by ss. 22(1)(c)(iii), and in particular, the question whether, on a proper construction of the Act, all persons other than registered professional engineers are prohibited absolutely, under pain of injunction, from referring to themselves as engineers.

[22] The prohibition in subsection (iii) is plainly against the use of any term implying that a person is a professional engineer. A professional engineer is a person registered or licensed under the Act. The question must be: licensed to do what? This, of course, takes one back to the definition of "practice"; in other words, licensed to carry on engineering in one of the disciplines. This does not require the general prohibition of the use of the term "engineering" which, as I have indicated, is a broad term and does not necessarily embrace only those things that fall within the disciplines specified or embraced generally by the Act.

[23] I therefore conclude that ss. (iii) does not generally prohibit the use of the term "engineer" or "engineering" by all persons other than those registered under the Act.

Wrong. Alberta Courts https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...resultIndex=26

Conclusion

[6] When the use of the term “System Engineer Representative” by the Respondent is examined, in his particular situation, I conclude as follow

[7] The term “System Engineer” has been widely used in the IT industry and, while connoting a degree of expertise, does not indicate one is a professional engineer or the practice of engineering is being carried on. It has acquired a secondary meaning similar to “Marine Engineer” or “Flight Engineer”. This understanding is particularly clear to those familiar with the IT industry. Because of the modifier “system”, there is little likelihood that confusion will arise because such engineers are representing themselves improperly.

[8] In addition, the Respondent is not holding himself out to the public in order to solicit work in the field of engineering. The Applicant does not contend that he should be prevented from carrying on his vocation, as he is at present.

[9] Ultimately the public’s safety must be the primary concern. The Respondent’s situation is such that it cannot be contended that the public is likely to be deceived, confused or jeopardized by his use of the term.

Order

[10] I am not persuaded that an injunction should issue to prohibit the Respondent designating himself as a “System Engineer Representative”. The application is dismissed.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Do you actually read the links you post? From the Alberta one above, for example:

In other words, if there is little or no likelihood of a member of the public being confused as to whether you are licensed with the provincial society, there is nothing to prevent anybody from using the term "engineer" or "engineering." Only in so far as some engineering disciplines - especially civil and mechanical engineering - are regulated by the professional associations, are those disciplines restricted in their use of the term, but systems engineers, locomotive engineers, network engineers, marine engineers, etc etc etc etc can call themselves whatever they like.

If you recall the beginning of the thread that this is a pointless digression from, the OP was an IT engineer. That is not a restricted designation in any province or territory in Canada. Pretty much every employer, recruiter and candidate across the country will use the term with impunity.

Do you still want to carry on with this charade?

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Additionally, they would hold Certificates of Qualifications from their Provincial governing body - which entitles them legally to use those specific titles, as in "Power Engineer" "Marine Engineer" and etc., it's the adjective plus the verb that designates what type of engineer they are.

:thumbup:

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I work in the mechanical engineering field (well used to) and as far as I am aware it is simply based on what name individual companies choose to give that role.

All the mechanical engineers I worked with at my last company were P.Eng certified. As they were actually mechanical engineers in the sense of the word.

Its all just a play on words.... I am a Design Draftsman... the most common name in Canada for that is job a Mechanical Designer, (also used in UK)...but most of the time in the UK this job was mainly called a Design Engineer....which is rather misleading as I am not an engineer. I have even seen drafting jobs in Canada given that title, and I have seen an actual Mechanical Engineer in both countries called Design Engineer! So as I say its all a play on words, and the choice of individual companies.

The only way to really know what the company is looking for is not from the title but to read the job description, and the work experience and academic qualifications they are asking for.

Re: Any recent Telecommunication Engineer experience?
 

I have a good one too....


What is a camel?

A camel is a horse designed by an engineer! :rofl:

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

After reading the various court transcripts provided I do agree that it is only in relation to disciplines specifically mentioned in the act.

However for completeness the definition is below and includes more than civil/mechanical.

practice of professional engineering” means the carrying on of chemical, civil, electrical, forest, geological, mechanical, metallurgical, mining or structural engineering, and other disciplines of engineering that may be designated by the council and for which university engineering programs have been accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board or by a body which, in the opinion of the council, is its equivalent, and includes reporting on, designing, or directing the construction of any works that require for their design, or the supervision of their construction, or the supervision of their maintenance, such experience and technical knowledge as are required by or under this Act for the admission by examination to membership in the association, and, without limitation, includes reporting on, designing or directing the construction of public utilities, industrial works, railways, bridges, highways, canals, harbour works, river improvements, lighthouses, wet docks, dry docks, floating docks, launch ways, marine ways, steam engines, turbines, pumps, internal combustion engines, airships and airplanes, electrical machinery and apparatus, chemical operations, machinery, and works for the development, transmission or application of power, light and heat, grain elevators, municipal works, irrigation works, sewage disposal works, drainage works, incinerators, hydraulic works, and all other engineering works, and all buildings necessary to the proper housing, installation and operation of the engineering works embraced in this definition.

The section in bold is interesting as this could be seen to include any discipline on the following list:
https://engineerscanada.ca/accredita...by-institution

This includes for instance 'Computer Engineering' and the French version of IT Engineering "Génie des technologies de l'information'. Indeed Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec has won court cases against Microsoft on the use of term engineer. Specifically in this case it was the title 'Microsoft Certified System Engineer'

Note in the first case given above as transcripts
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/do...resultIndex=25
The injunction was awarded as the defendant was using a title falling under 'Electrical Engineering' without registration. The defendant had never been registered with APEGBC or anywhere else.

In addition the OP in the original post was asking about telecommunications engineer not IT engineer. Telecommunications can be viewed as a sub-discipline of electrical engineering (specifically stated in the act) and Computer Engineering (which could be defined by bold section above). As such it is entirely possible that use of the title telecommunications engineer could be seen as failing under the defined disciplines in the act.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I have to say that I've never been bothered that others have chosen to call themselves 'engineer'. It has always been my experience that those who need to know can quite easily discriminate.

I completely undersand why some might get upset but it's not really an argument worth having.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Bit of a storm in a tea cup.... I think an individual and the company they work for, know if they are an engineer or not. Its just a word used to describe a job.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Just to clarify that I actually don't care who calls themselves what. I just want them to do so with an understanding of the difficulties of doing so given the regulatory environment in Canada.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

That's a fair point. A Mechanical Engineer in Canada is a regulated profession, wheras a technologist for example is not.

I don't know of such a regulatory system in the UK.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

My first job (grad. eng) was in 1972. Many of the P.Engs were British. The dept. manager(P.Eng) to whom I reported qualified using his HNC certificate.

An electrical engineer (B.Sc. Eng) of my acquaintance, not a "joiner" as he described himself, was taken to court for signing off himself as the project engineer during correspondence. This guy turned up in court and successfully defended himself as free to call himself the project engineer, which indeed he was.

A friend owned a tool, die and special purpose machine shop employing no P.Engs. Somehow the provincial P.Eng body got hold of some of his company correspondence and machine drawings and decided to prosecute him. He never described himself as an engineer of any description-he was the chief designer. Case tossed out of court.

More recently there was a move afoot by some I.T jobsworth to create a chartered provincial body regulating the industry-it failed, after so many expressed fear of over-regulation, stifling bureaucracy, and suppression of creativity.

I'm in England now, and the telephone installer at my new home was described by B.T as a Telephone Engineer. Who cares?

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Agree, who cares? The only people who care about what engineers are called are engineers. Everyone who knows anything about engineering knows what an engineer is and what an engineer isn't.

The rest of the majority of the population, who don't really understand what engineering is, think that anything technical involves engineers of different levels of braininess.

And the sun still rises each day...

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

There was a discussion here, in the software engineering department, recently about the way in which "engineer" as a term has been degraded. Time was people would expect an engineer to be able to build a bridge using only a slide rule or operate a locomotive. Now everyone's called an engineer even if all they do is type. We wondered if we, uneducated rote labourers, few of us literate in the language of the country in which we live, and, yet, at the same time, highly paid "engineers", were responsible for the decline in status of the term.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Engineers don't help themselves though. Most engineers in my industry don't appreciate the difference between an engineering project and a construction project, they are quite happy to take the glory of great constructors.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

There's quite a bit of unwarranted hostility towards Engineer_Abroad in this thread.

I'd say the only people who care about what engineers are called are engineers, and those who have been injured or had loved ones killed by people who called themselves engineers but actually were not qualified to do the job.

In Canada people seem to respect the profession, in the UK a lot of people thought I wore overalls and either fixed cars or other mechanical things. That's because I've seen ridiculous titles like 'production engineer' to describe production line workers and 'heating engineer' for a plumber.

I've worked with enough 'engineers' stealing a living to know some form of protection for the title is a good idea. We seem to have no problems protecting lawyers or doctors but in most cases the outcomes of their ineptitude will result in a single death/ruined life. There's countless examples of engineers working in an unregulated environment killing hundreds and in some cases thousands and causing huge damage to the environment. When a mistake is so costly, I think it's worth making sure the person responsible is up to the task.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I don't believe that my advice has ever resulted in the death of anyone. I accept that it is possible that someone may have believed their life was ruined after receiving one of my invoices but, if that happened, I was not informed about it. :p

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Just to add that the reason why Canada adopted a regulated engineering model in the first place was as a result of the Quebec bridge collapse in 1907.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...HclCyWdwpUpdpq

Video versions also available on youtube for those interested, just look up Quebec bridge disaster.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I've often considered a comparison of consequences between design engineering and some other professions.

If I made a mistake then there'd be an expensive piece of equipment somewhere that someone had actually built and if it didn't work then no amount of wishful thinking would make it go away. It's why there are checking systems in place and checks to check the checker. I remember that I used to be really pleased if anyone uncovered one of my mistakes and I was rigorous, almost demonic, in checking others.

I hadn't heard of the Quebec disaster before and Quebec Bridge Disaster - The Canadian Encyclopedia is a short description of the collapse for anyone interested.

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

Me to OH: All the nice people in BE are getting really angry about the word engineer!

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I've heard you aren't a real lawyer until your invoice causes someone to contemplate suicide... ;)

Re: Engineer_Abroad's discussion on P.Eng v Engineer
 

I personally think that qualified and competent engineers are much better than lawyers :p