Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers 17

[etch]

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

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

Does this accreditation allow you to work anywhere in US?

WHy have it? (advantages/Disadvantages)

Can you work without one?

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

Is there different bodies?

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

 

[buzzp]

That is the key, your not offering engineering services, your offering a product (at least in my case). Thus, there is absolutely NO requirement to have a PE. Most the items I have worked on were requests made by other companies (not the public) for a specific product. This is perfectly legal and a very widely accepted practice.

I believe that some engineers (at least electrical) do not understand there are numerous engineers working for companies other than a consulting company. Where do you suppose all the products come from that they specify? Generally, not a consulting engineer. But an engineer, such as myself, without a PE. I have worked with several PE's in the power industry. They have their place in doing short circuit analysis etc. I do not have the knowledge to do what they do and they don't have the knowledge to make the products they specify.

 

[BobPE]

electricpete

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

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

BobPE

 

[melone]

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

 

[patdaly]

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

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

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

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

 

[CanEngJohn]

RDK writes

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

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

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

Licensing requirement

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

and then the following exemption

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

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

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

 

[Nait]

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

CanEngJohn:

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

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

 

[electroEng]

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

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

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

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

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


ElectroEng

 

[buzzp]

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

 

[Hush]

Nortel

 

[buzzp]

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

 

[Hush]

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

 

[CanEngJohn]

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

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

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

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

 

[buzzp]

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

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

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

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

 

[RDK]

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

Here are some interesting tax and government spending comparisons.

The tax freedom day in Canada is 28 Jun.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/share...?sNav=nr&id=536

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

We have a government surplus of 1.4% of GDP.

http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/cosg_203.asp

Therefore our net tax rate is 47.4% of GDP

Tax freedom day in the USA is 19 Apr

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

That is 29.6 % of the year or 29.6% GDP

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

The USA spends 13.9% of their GDP on health care.

http://www.who.int/country/usa/en/

They also have a 4.6% budget deficit.

http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/cosg_203.asp

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

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

(And as a PS Canadians have a longer life expectancy while spending 57% of the US per capita amount on health care

http://www.who.org.

Since 43,000,000 Americans lack health insurance and 18,000 die from that lack annually I’d say our social policy is much more enlightened than the US in that area.)



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[GregLocock]

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

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

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

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[buzzp]

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

 

[i278]

buzzp,

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

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

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

Regards

 

[buzzp]

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

 

[dporte17]

i278:

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

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

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

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

 

[buzzp]

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