Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's 3

[Electic]

This change was proposed some time ago in our State Professional Engineering Journal and now is being proposed as a revision CR-102 to the Revised Code of Washington RCW 34.05.320

The purpose given for this change is to address applicants that are seeking licensure in Washington State that are currently licensed in Non-U.S. jurisdiction. License mobility for eligible Canadian Professional Engineers will be promoted with adoption of the new rule.

It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test (but is required to write a morals and ethics test regarding Intelectual property etc.)

It is possible for graduates of American Schools to obtain licensure in Canada, and with this proposed change it would be possible for those graduates to obtain Washington State license and then other state licenses by comity.

I have written objections to this apparent breach of standard to the State Board, but they are proceeding full speed ahead, eager to collect more license fees.

My personal experience includes working for Canadian Engineering firms, working for Canadian customers and working in Canada (I obtained a BC license). It is very clear to anyone remotely familiar to this work that the cultures are different including the expectation of professional duty. There are different engineering and construction laws in Canada governing these fields that do not exist in Washington State. I am not commenting on which is better; however to ignore the difference could be dangerous to the public and catastrophic to engineering careers. It is very easy to imagine that foreign engineers will submit unrealistic proposals based on a different expectation of service.

I predict that our State Board will learn the different expectations with time, and then subject Washington State Engineers to new corrective regulations, in the meantime how many projects will get mis-funded or lost?

At this time, there is no restriction on foreign engineers, other than to pass the same PE and FE test that in state engineers are required to pass.

 

[Electic]

Sorry you feel that way Greg.

Or do you have a legitimate reason to add to this thread why foreign engineers desire to be exempted from the same technical test that is required of residents?

 

[GregLocock]

Because that's what comity (legal reciprocity) means.

I look forward to your new interpretation of comity with respect to USA and Canadian driving licenses.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[moltenmetal]

There is free trade in goods AND services between Canada and the US. NO TARRIFS- no involvement from either US or Canadian Customs.

Free trade means that firms (whether those be corporations or sole proprietorships) are free to seek BUSINESS in either country without their fees being subject to tarrifs.

Free trade does NOT permit citizens of one nation to become resident and take employment in the other without a work visa or other similar arrangement. This is true in BOTH nations and is controlled by the Immigration/Naturalization departments in both countries. It is EXTREMELY important to understand this distinction when crossing the border in either direction for work: what matters is who pays your salary, NOT what kind of work is being done.

Electic's claim that:

"Engineering is presently constricted by Canadian Immigration, Customs and Licensing requirements, those are true trade "barriers" and not technical requirements."

is, in my own personal experience, a baseless statement, and would be so were it to be made in either direction across the Canada/US border.

It's totally inconsistent to argue that comity between particular Canadian provinces and particular US states is not warranted because the US tests are harder or more thorough (i.e. more protective of the public interest against incompetent practitioners), and then to argue that Canadian licensure requirements are mere "trade barriers" and "not technical requirements". Both countries have licensure rules intended to protect their respective publics against incompetent or unscrupulous practitioners- we merely differ in what rules we set and how we evaluate competence.

I'm not saying that licensure processes can't act as a proxy for protectionism- there certainly ARE jurisdictions in the world where that is true- but it's a stretch to imagine that Canada's comparatively weak licensure system acts in any meaningful way in restraint of trade with respect to the US.

 

[Electic]

Moltenmetal;

I'm not saying the US tests are harder or more thorough; I am correctly stating the fact that there is no Canadian test.

Province of Alberta now offers the FE and PE tests to NCEES standard for those engineers seeking licensure in the United States, but that is not a requirement for the provincial licenses.

I never said that "Canada's comparatively weak licensure system" (your words!) acts as a trade restriction; customs and immigration does that. Before you declare there is no trade restriction going north you should try to enter Canada as an Engineer seeking projects: not possible. And also, in the provinces I checked, one cannot obtain a real license without citizenship or residency, only a provisional licensee type of thing.

If someone has passed the FE and PE test, that is a common basis for comity in States.

Here is the bottom line: Canada hands out an engineering license to everyone that apply, on basis of graduating from a recognized engineering school. That includes schools from around the world. That also includes ABET accredited US schools, so the claim that somehow Canadian education standards are more rigorous is not correct. On basis of this untested Canadian license (comparatively weak) they are now seeking parity with US licensure which requires passing the test. It does not take a mental giant to notice the inequity in this proposal.

 

[moltenmetal]

"you should try to enter Canada as an Engineer seeking projects: not possible"

If this is your experience, I suggest that you are approaching the border crossing with the wrong mindset. You need to figure out what the rules are, and are not, before you attempt to cross a national border for commercial purposes.

If you represent yourself in such a way which leaves ANY doubt in the mind of the immigration folks about your desire to seek EMPLOYMENT work without a work visa, you can and SHOULD expect to be turned back and refused entry. Doesn't matter WHICH direction you're crossing that border on that point, trust me! If you however are going to meet potential clients to discuss projects that your firm might be engaged to carry out, you will not be denied entry on that basis by either country.

To correct your statement: there ARE Canadian tests- we just choose to accredit schools and programs and review experience rather than making every single applicant sit the tests. It is an efficient licensure system which represents far less of an arbitrary barrier to licensure for engineers trained outside Canada, including those educated in the US, than does your system- that issue is pretty important to us as a nation primarily composed of immigrants. Some may argue that our system is also less protective of the public safety than is your system. I'd argue that the general industrial EXEMPTION your nation offers to most people who work as engineers in most states is far more worrisome from that perspective, but we can agree to disagree on that point.

Comity/reciprocity arrangements are needed to remove the residency requirement which is usually part of the governing legislation on BOTH sides of the border. Those residency requirements ARE understandable, since it is tough for a provincial/state body to reach across a national border to discipline a licensee in any meaningful way. You cannot reasonably expect one state or province to remove that requirement unilaterally- they will only do it reciprocally. When the systems of licensure between the two jurisdictions are not identical, there will always be one side feeling that it's coming out the loser.

 

[Electic]

MoltenMetal,

what you are overlooking, like many Canadians, is that to be licensed in the United States generally requires

1) Graduation from an ABET accredited engineering school. This is not a lightweight accreditation process and in fact (go ahead and verify this) all ABET accredited US schools qualify for licensure within the Western Provinces. I know this because I have done this.

2) Documentation of four years professional experience. Onc again this in not a lighweight accreditation process and it typically may require more years of work to accumulate the required 4 years of experience. Because we do not hand out engineering licenses Carte Blache, it is a real consideration for young engineers to select an employer where proper experience can be accumulated to the satisfaction of the State Board. Once again I have completed this on both sides of the border and most Canadians I've spoken to are not aware the Americans have this standard.

3) only then, in the US does one qualify to sit for the PE exam. Passing rates are somewhere around 50-60%. Many American Engineers do not pursue licensure, in fact only 15% of electrical engineers in Washington State are licensed because they are not offering "engineering" services to the public.

May Canadians make a big deal about the "industry exception" not understanding how this works. Nobody in the United States is allowed to offer engineering services to the public without a PE license, and the Industry Exception is used at locations like power companies and aircraft manufacturers where the industry sets the standard and folks are not working independently for the public. I know from personal experience the same situation exists in Canada, wherein undocumented designers and engineers DO work inside of larger corporations where their work is reviewed by others. If you think only licensed P.Eng's are drawing up subdivisions for the Canadian power companies, you are delusional; however, at some point the power company will be responsible for its product and that might involve review by a P.Eng. That is exactly how the oft quoted and rarely understood "industrial Exception" works

Having obtained a P.Eng license for the province of BC and living 20 miles from the border, I have tried to obtain work across the border. This is not hypothetical, it is real world experience and unless I have a letter of agreement from the B.C. Government (previous employer had this, I am not certain who originated it) I WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS INTO THE COUNTRY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. That is in stark contrast to the several dozen engineers I personally know that are commuting to Washington State. These engineers have also had to obtain work permits, green cards or some other authorization, but generally that is available.

You need to understand, there is no residency requirement to obtain licensure in the United States; so that part of it already exists. It is easy to obtain a work permit as a Canadian Engineer physically working in the US, and in fact much work is done in Canada on American projects: no permit required that I am aware of: that part of it already exists (going south only)also.

I simply do not believe in a double standard, wherein one group of engineers can exempt themselves from a technical test based on country of origin; while the resident engineers remain burdened by the test. Why bother with the test at all?

 

[JStephen]

"It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test...It is possible for graduates of American Schools to obtain licensure in Canada, and with this proposed change it would be possible for those graduates to obtain Washington State license and then other state licenses by comity."

One misconception I would like to point out is that comity is not usually applied blindly, but is used where the other state has equivalent requirements. For example, back when I got my Texas license, Texas did not require either test (and was the only state that didn't at the time). However, in order to get a license in any other state, I had to take the tests. As applied to the original post, I think the concern would be entirely for the state of Washington, and would not be an issue for other states, who would still require the tests prior to licensing Washington PE's by comity.

At one time, Texas had some information on comity licensing under NAFTA, I'm not sure if it's still there or not.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the tests or altogether in favor of them, either. The main drawback I see is that the tests assume you are pigeonholed into certain slots. If not, they simply don't relate to what you do, and are relatively pointless. It's like requiring a brain surgeon to take a plumbing test before practicing. Presumably any good brain surgeon could study up on the subject and pass the test, but it seems a poor way to ensure compentency in brain surgery.

 

[HgTX]

"the tests assume you are pigeonholed into certain slots. If not, they simply don't relate to what you do, and are relatively pointless."

Amen. There is no test to match my particular pigeonhole. Any test I take is nothing more than a hoop to jump through.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[Electic]

I agree with what both HgTX and JStephen have posted. The test is a hoop to jump through. Though I would add that it has been a somewhat effective hoop (not perfect) to the extent that it requires preparation, sincerity and respect for due process. I think verifying these attributes is more appropriate for foreign engineers that might originate in different cultures, than for resident engineers.

Also, to remove this requirement only from foreign engineers could affect domestic engineers if comity is lost to other jurisdictions that require testing. For example, the State of Oregon is opposed to granting comity to foreign engineers without testing, so it is plausible Oregon would withdraw comity agreements from Washington State, testing is not required for all engineers in Washington.

To put a real life example to this, a friend of mine with a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering recently retired, having never pursued or obtaining his PE license. This fellow also had his Journeyman Electrician license maintained at all times and also had his Master Electrician license. He has forgotten more about industrial power systems than most engineers will ever know.

For his entire career, this fellow never offered engineering to the public, nor did he work on public projects. He did not appreciate the pomp and formality associated with engineering licenses and said many times that his most satisfying and challenging engineering projects were some that he started to work on as an electrician. At one time he owned a large contracting business on the North Slope of Alaska, and worked much of his career as an independent "designer" on paper mill, refinery and saw mill sites.

It is ludicrous for our State Board to endorse untested foreign engineers, as being better qualified than folks like this friend of mine.

 

[JStephen]

I just renewed my Colorado license, and they had a certificate about legal residency. I didn't look at ALL the details, but it looks like if you are not in the country in the first place, it is not applicable to you, and I would think that is the intent elsewhere. IE, they are trying to root out illegal aliens, not to keep foreignors from being licensed.

 

[msquared48]

A local engineer in Bellingham is starting a campaign to combat this. Got an email from him today.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[Electic]

Msquared48

the fellow you got the e-mail from is working with me on this. We have received nearly unanimous support for our opposition, including from legitimate Canadian engineers. Most engineers we have contacted are initially not aware of the proposed rule change and after we convince them it is real, are disappointed in our State Board.

I hope you sign his petition, and also consider forwarding the info to as many engineers and other interested parties as possible.

 

[msquared48]

Small World...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[Electic]

This is an update:

on Friday September 24th the Washington State Board by split decision voted against the proposed rule change granting comity to foreign engineers that have not passed the PE or EIT examinations.

At this time Canadian Engineers may work in the State of Washington (pending immigration compliance) under the same provision granted to resident engineers, as either an unlicensed engineer under another engineer's suprevision, or by obtaining a Washington State license by passing the examinations.

The Board stated that they felt this was 'not the time' to make such a rule change in light of overwhelming opposition to the rule change. Over 900 engineers had signed a petition or wrote letters of opposition; some of the most compelling letters were from Canadian Engineers that had already obtain American licensure and have lived according to the differing engineering expectations. ASCE section 8 (14,000 members) opposed the rule change, and approximately 16 local legislators and State Senators wrote letters of opposition. There is a draft revision to Washintong State Code drafted by one of our legislators that prohibits licensure by comity to regions with less rigorous standards including specific wording about the tests, and there were several threats of lawsuit if the measure had passed.

It is interesting how many half truths were presented by Canadian interests seeking this rule change. Both the Alberta and British Columbia Associations of professional engineers have been negotiationg such 'comity' for many years (over 12 years).

 

[photoengineer]

I think that was a wise decision by the Washington State board.

 

[TGS4]

Electic - thanks for the update.

As an APEGGA member, I am very interested in your comment

It is interesting how many half truths were presented by Canadian interests seeking this rule change. Both the Alberta and British Columbia Associations of professional engineers have been negotiationg such 'comity' for many years (over 12 years).

Please be so kind as to let us know what these "half-truths" are. If my association is engaging in "half-truths", I will be most unkind to those responsible.

 

[Ron]

Electic...thanks for the update and for pushing hard against this in your state. It will come around again. I was encouraged to see the support for not allowing the change.

 

[Electic]

TGS4; Many times these were individual statements, not representing the Canadian Associations, however some originate from high ranking members:

1) There is a great Canadian misunderstanding of licensed v. non-licensed engineering work completed in the U.S. Having worked on both sides of the border I can say the rules really are quite similar.

2) Canadian engineering education is more tightly controlled because there are only a few engineering schools in Canada.

3) Canadian engineering education is superior because only licensed PE's can teach.

4) Canadian Engineers are more responsible.

5) NCEES model legislation has authority above State legislation.

6) Comity without testing is a requirement of NAFTA.

There are many Canadian Engineers that have obtained licensure within Washington State by passing the same tests as required of resident engineers. Some of the most compelling letters of opposition to the proposed comity without testing, originated from these fellows who have lived with and understand the differences of both systems.

 

[VESE]

I have a question relating to this thread:

Is reciprosity possible in Canada for an engineer from the states? I always understood that you had to be either
1) a resident of Canada
2) a non-resident, but anything that you design has to be also stamped by a resident engineer.

Does anyone know if there is a way around these requirements?

FWIW, I'm all about national pride in regards to engineering prowess, but I beleive that both systems (Canada and the U.S.) have inherent strengths and weaknesses. I doubt either country produces consistently better/ more responsible/ smarter engineers than the other.

 

[Electic]

VESE: there is good information about the requirements of most (if not all; we didn't check) provincial Associations on their respective web sites. Province of BC offers something like 6 different grades of licensure based on citizenship or residency status and other qualifications. I suspect that at least you could obtain a temporary, limited license that would allow you to do the work and stamp your drawings.

The basis for obtaining these licenses is graduation from an accredited school, 4 years of documented professional experience, and writing a morals and ethics test (intellectual property and copyright law etc.). When I did it, the morals and ethics test could be sent to you and proctored by another PE.

The bigger challenge would be to understand the construction deliverables, how work is awarded, and requirements from the authority having jurisdiction. It might be best to work with a resident engineer to understand the local culture best.