The common perception is something along the lines of "In Canada, it's illegal to call yourself an engineer unless you have a PE license, full stop." The quote from Professional Engineers Ontario seems to encourage this interpretation. But the statute they cite seems to be more specific than that.
Offence, use of term “professional engineer”, etc.
(2) Every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,
(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
[...]
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for the first offence to a fine of not more than $10,000 and for each subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $25,000.
I believe the hierarchy used here is meaningful. The use of "engineer" (as opposed to "professional engineer") is addressed in subparagraph (2)(a.1), under the paragraph (2)(a), which says that your job title or business name can't be "professional engineer" unless you are a professional engineer.
Paragraph (2)(a.1) extends this to say that your job title or business name can't use "engineer" in a way that will make people think you are a professional engineer when you really aren't. This is in the context of the parent paragraph about claiming to be a professional engineer. If it were prohibited wholesale to call yourself an "engineer" under any circumstances without holding a PE, I wouldn't expect that to appear in this form in the statutes.
In short, what the law really seems to say is that, without a PE license:
- You can't claim to be a Professional Engineer
- You can't claim to be an "engineer" and let people think it means you're a Professional Engineer
This focuses on making sure that when we rely on engineering plans, they have been examined and approved by someone who knows what they're doing -- not on making "engineer" a protected title that is illegal to use unless you have a license. This interpretation of the statute suggests that there is actually nothing illegal about the use of the word "engineer" in job titles in Canada, as long as it's not done in a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe it means "licensed professional engineer".
It says or abbreviation which I imagine would cover engineer. It's well established here that you call yourself doctor or use the Dr abbreviation either if are not an active member of the college of medicine.
I am somewhat familiar with all these rules since a trained engineer with a PhD, but I am not a active member of the professional engineer association. I also used be a have the work title of "principal architect". In reality I can't legally call myself (or really let others) doctor, engineer or architect. I must admit it's a bit challenging when dealing with multinational.
Yes, the term in question for me is only "engineer".
> (a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
So (a) tells us rather clearly that we can't present ourselves as John Doe, Professional Engineer, or call our business a Professional Engineering firm, or whatever.
> (a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
Here, (a.1) seems to add, specifically as a sub-paragraph to (a), that it's also prohibited to call yourself an "engineer", or "eng.", etc., if it will make people think you're a professional engineer.
According to Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (1), one of the canons of interpretation is that "Material within an indented subpart relates only to that subpart".
While (a.1) is not indented with whitespace (2), I believe the paragraph numbering is functionally equivalent.
Further, the Fundamental Principle #4, "Presumption Against Ineffectiveness" is of some interest: "A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document’s purpose should be favored". Of course, it would not obstruct the purpose of the statute to interpret it as prohibiting whatsoever the use of the title "engineer". I bring up this principle because it implies that purpose is relevant to interpretation. That's why I think it's significant that the overall purpose of this statute is apparently to prevent people from being mistaken about who is and isn't a licensed professional engineer.
So, if we take for example the matter of people calling themselves "software engineers": The phrase "professional engineer" or equivalent wasn't used, which would have been prohibited outright per (a). Now, for (a.1), is this use of the word "engineer" going to make a reasonable person believe that the SWE is a professional engineer who can sign off on plans of the sort that require licensure because people die if the plans are wrong? I don't think so, and as far as I can see, it is only in those circumstances that "engineer" by itself is a protected title. I suspect what happened is that people/companies largely opted to avoid trouble by avoiding the word entirely, leading to a common assumption that "engineer" per se is entirely off-limits unless you're a PE.
