Introduction
Engineering profession in Canada is self-regulated while in the U.S. it is state-regulated. However, there has been a long-standing debate on whether self-regulation in the engineering profession in Canada has served the public interest in a similar way as the U.S. and other state-regulated regimes. Before engineering was made a self-regulated profession in Canada, there were other professions like medicine and law which were being self-regulated. However, these self-regulated fields had been marred with numerous scandals because they were putting their interests before those of the public. They would increase the cost of professional services and engage in professional misconduct because there was no one to question their activities (Adams 1). Therefore, by extending self-regulation to the engineering profession in Canada, it was a big mistake because it provided the practitioners an avenue to pursue their interests at the expense of those of the public.
Protect Public Welfare
Safeguarding public welfare refers to taking measures which will prevent dangers which are likely to affect the safety of the public. The government is the primary custodian of the responsibility of protecting the public from any harm, and it cannot entirely delegate such responsibility to another party (Mintz 59). So, even if the government of Canada has allowed professional engineers and engineers in the country to regulate themselves, the public holds the government into account for crimes and disasters caused by the negligence of practitioners in the industry.
Self-Regulation in Canada
Self-regulation in Canada can be traced as far as in the 1920s when the engineers practicing in the country at the time started to fight for the establishment of the engineering profession. They asked the provincial governments to enact laws that would formally protect the standards and status of their profession. The first province to create a law to that effect was Ontario where the Professional Engineering Act of 1922 was enacted. The Act was revised in 1937 to limit the use of the titles ‘Professional Engineer’ and ‘Engineer’ to licensed engineers only. The main reason for the creation of the law was to regulate the engineering profession, and it became a self-regulated field in Ontario. Other provinces would then adopt the same Act and implement it within their jurisdiction. Under these laws, engineers are required to form an Association and elect a Council from amongst them which will be responsible for enforcing the Act and issuing licenses to members (Professional Engineers of Ontario). Additionally, the Council develops and enforces its regulations, policies, standards and code of ethics.
Supporters of self-regulation in engineering profession argue that the election of council members provides a team of people with relevant knowledge who are involved in the regulation of the profession. Since the elected members of the Council are well-informed engineers, they make practical and reasonable bylaws, registration requirements and discipline mechanism. Moreover, the fact that the government does not fund the associations reduces the political interference of how the profession is supervised (Castro 6). On the other hand, opponents of self-regulation of engineering profession argue that it is wrong to assume that all engineers will put the public interest ahead of their own. They also claim that the professional associations lack the resources to supervise such an extensive field effectively. Furthermore, it is harder for the associations to take legal action against non-members who may be practicing as if they were qualified engineers than a government regulatory body (9). Therefore, even if self-regulation is necessary, they argue that it should be supplemented with state regulation to a certain extent.
In the U.S., engineering profession is state-regulated where the government appoints an agency to oversee the activities of engineers practicing in the country. Regulation of engineers in the U.S. started earlier than in Canada. The first state law to regulate the practice was enacted in 1907, and its objective was to serve the interest of the public by ensuring that practitioners protect the public health, safety, and welfare (Nelson 4). The enactment of the first law to regulate engineers in the United States in the early 19th century was necessitated by the increasing complexity of agricultural and industrial public works. The number of unqualified people involved in designing such works was growing fast, and incidents of failed infrastructural projects became a concern for state governments (5). They identified engineering licensure as the way to go in bringing sanity into the industry.
In 1907, Wyoming became the first state to pass the bill to regulate engineering by requiring all those who presented themselves as engineers or land surveyors to register and created a state board of examiners to evaluate knowledge and skills of those who wanted to be licensed as engineers in the state. It did not take long before other states which were facing the same problems to follow the same route (Nelson 6). Hence, by 1920, ten states had enacted laws to regulate engineering profession within their jurisdiction and created boards to oversee activities of those in the industry. However, the problems of differences in language and registration requirements differed substantially from one state to another, and engineers from one state could not practice in any of the other states (7). It would take the courage of Iowa State Board of Engineering Examiners to call a conference for all the boards of the ten states to come up with requirements for interstate registration of engineers.
Seven of the ten state boards met that year, and they formed the Council of State Boards of Engineering Examiner which was the forerunner of National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The primary objective of the new body was to promote the development of uniform regulations and improve collaborations between themselves (Nelson 8). In 1932, the Council approved a model law and standardized licensing guidelines for state boards and documentation procedures to help engineers who wanted to practice in other states (9). In 1947, all the U.S. states and the District of Columbia had own engineering registration laws and exams which differed significantly from one state to another (10). The Council sought to harmonize the registration requirements by developing national exams for engineers, and in 1965, 30 states took part in administering the first national exams for engineers in the United States (11). However, the responsibility of regulating engineers in the U.S. remained with the governments of individual states and territories.
My Opinion
It is difficult for the public to hold into account the members of self-regulatory bodies because there is no direct relationship between the two. Hence, in case an association fails to take proper actions against its members who fail to comply with established laws and regulations, the members of the public cannot do anything to correct the situation. However, in a state-regulated environment, the people can vote out a government that does not take disciplinary actions against professionals who do not protect public welfare. Hence, state-regulation serves the interest of the public in an effective manner because the members of the regulatory bodies fear that they will be removed from their positions if they do not perform to the expectation of the public.
Some countries like UK, Australia and the U.S. which have been using self-regulation approach in the major professions like medicine, accounting, law, and engineering have in the recent time reviewed their law to increase the role of government in overseeing these industries. In fact, Canada is the only country in the world where self-regulation is deeply entrenched (Adams 1). The issue that comes up is whether Canada has stronger professional associations than other countries to protect the public interest than their counterparts in other countries. I do not think this is the case as there have been incidents in the country where engineers have been implicated in the violation of their code of ethics, and the outcomes of their cases have not been made public.
Another challenge that self-regulation may pose is inadequate resources to regulate the sector. With over one million engineers in the country, it is important to have a regulatory body that has unlimited financial and human resources to oversee the activities of each one of them. The self-regulation bodies get their funding directly from the people they are expected to supervise and this introduces problems of conflicts of interest. For example, the councils may be reluctant to prosecute engineers who make large contributions for fear that they will lose important sources of their revenues. Therefore, I believe that state regulation is more effective than self-regulation even though the professional bodies should have a say in the way their industry is being regulated.
Works Cited
Adams, Tracey L. “Professional self-regulation and public interest in Canada.” Professions and Professionalism. 6.3 (2016): 1-15.
Castro, Daniel. Benefits and limitations of industry self-regulation for online behavioural advertising. The International Technology & Innovation Foundation, (2011): 1-14.
Mintz, Steven M. Accounting for the public interest: Perspectives on accountability, professionalism and role in society. Berlin: Springer. 2013. Print. P59.
Nelson, Jon D. Professional engineering: The regulation of engineers in the United States. NCEES. 2012.
Professional Engineers of Ontario. Engineering: A self-regulated profession. 2013. Web. 30 January 2017.
