PEO Members of Council 2010 Elections:
The OSPE Questionnaire

For further details on this year's candidates, please visit http://www.peo.on.ca/Elections/Elections2010/Election2010.html

OSPE recently sent a questionnaire to all candidates running for election to PEO's Council, including those acclaimed to their positions, to solicit their views on issues affecting engineers and the engineering profession. As the advocacy organization representing the interests of Ontario's engineers, the OSPE questionnaire was developed in order to help members better understand the candidates' views and how they could impact on OSPE.

Although PEO Council is tasked with carrying out PEO's mandate to regulate the profession and protect the public interest, which is different from OSPE's mandate to be the Voice of Ontario's engineers, many Council decisions affect engineers. As a result, OSPE believes that it is important for OSPE members voting in this Council election to know how candidates respond to issues of importance to OSPE.

All answers received to our questions are posted below, without editing. Please note that candidates were asked to be succinct in their responses.

OSPE Questions to PEO council election candidates:

1. OSPE is proudly celebrating its tenth anniversary. Since its founding, OSPE and PEO have worked together to further the interests of the engineering profession within our defined roles. As OSPE moves into its eleventh year, how can we build on this spirit of cooperation? If there are areas of fundamental conflict between regulation and advocacy, what are they and how can we address them?

2. The 2009 Engineering and Technology Labour Market Survey confirmed that female enrolment in engineering continues to lag behind that of other professions. In fact, in the last decade, the percentage of women studying engineering has declined. How can PEO and OSPE work together to engage traditionally under-represented groups in science and math? What can we do to encourage them to pursue careers in these areas?

3. The Green Energy Act is one of a number of steps the government is taking to develop a green economy. What role can PEO and OSPE play to promote and prepare engineers for green collar jobs?

4. PEO, with the creation of the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy, joins OSPE in engaging engineers in discussions of public policy. What opportunities exist for PEO and OSPE to collaborate in this area all the while maintaining their distinct mandate?

5. Recently, provincial and federal governments agreed to a pan-Canadian framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Credentials. Engineering is one of eight priority professions identified in this framework. How will this affect PEO operations? How can the profession strengthen efforts to support internationally-trained engineers as they seek meaningful employment in their field?

6. For many years, the engineering profession has discussed implementing specialty designations. What are your thoughts on the issue? Should specialty designations be made a priority for PEO in 2010?

Question 1: OSPE is proudly celebrating its tenth anniversary. Since its founding, OSPE and PEO have worked together to further the interests of the engineering profession within our defined roles. As OSPE moves into its eleventh year, how can we build on this spirit of cooperation? If there are areas of fundamental conflict between regulation and advocacy, what are they and how can we address them?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
The only conflict that arises is the failure to recognize joint responsibility in recognition and promotion of the Engineering Profession. OSPE's responsibility to advocate for the individual engineer is clear cut.
In areas of joint responsibility such as Government Liason, the two organizations should combine efforts and expenditures, eliminate confusion on the part of Government and reduce costs for both.
I am proposing PEO spend $25,000 on Licensure issues and $125,000 on joint PEO/OSPE/MPP relations.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
None in reality, but approaches are different leading to apparent conflicts; - i.e.: public interest vs Eng’s private interests. The key to co-operation is knowing the people on the other side. It is much easier to resolve disagreements between friends than between strangers.
The JRC should meet monthly to maintain such a relationship. As President in 2000/2001, I met the Pres of OSPE for a weekly lunch to discuss what was happening.
As many co-operative efforts as possible should be encouraged. The Awards Committee, the Chapter Liaison committee and the annual PEO –Council and OSPE Board dinner are some examples of good links that must be encouraged and extended.
The bottom line is that we are all working to help the Profession so there is a common interest.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
Fundamentally there isn’t a conflict of interest between the activities of Professional Engineers Ontario, the regulator of the practice of engineering in Ontario, and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. The former acts to protect the interests of all people in Ontario in matters of engineering practice. The latter acts independently to protect and advance the interests of Professional Engineers. I believe that the Society and the Association portray their roles clearly and unambiguously.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
I believe the spirit of cooperation has always been there, but both groups have to do more. OSPE is doing a good job of advocating for engineers, but resources are limited. OSPE could do much more. PEO should encourage its members to become members of OSPE. Increased membership will translate into a greater Voice for all of Ontario’s engineers.
If elected to council, I will encourage OSPE to do more when it comes to advocacy at the PEO chapter level and be more involved in PEO chapter meetings. Some of this is being done with PEO chapters that are very active, but PEO should engage OSPE to participate in these activities more often.
We need to encourage engineers to learn about and join OSPE programs. In addition to OSPE being the advocacy body for Ontario’s engineers, it also provides on-going education, a career centre for engineers, and affinity programs like The Personal home and auto insurance, professional liability insurance, Manulife health and life insurance, legal advice, car rentals, hotel and gas discounts, etc.
If there are areas of fundamental conflict between regulation and advocacy, what are they and how can we address them?
That has always been problematic and we have to work hard to ensure engineers, governments and the public understand the roles that each organization plays. PEO is the regulatory body and OSPE is the advocacy body. Mutual support is the key to the success of both organizations. They need to stick to the letter of their mandates and not infringe on each other’s responsibilities.
Conflict persists, for example the PEO Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy. OSPE advocates and PEO regulates. There is really no need for conflict. PEO seems to be getting into advocacy beyond its mandate of being a regulator.They should not be acting as the Voice of Ontario’s engineers. That’s OSPE’s role. There is room for them to advocate in terms of regulatory issues with government, but their advocacy efforts should end there.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
PEO is the regulatory body for the engineering profession and OSPE is the engineering advocacy body. They have their precise roles. Both associations are centered on the engineering profession and therefore a spirit of cooperation and reciprocal trust must continue to prevail in this relationship. However, by the nature of their individual roles, potential conflicts might arise. PEO is the regulator and issues a licence to practice engineering. OSPE is the advocacy body and has the role of ensuring that the licensed engineer gets the right value for his licence. For example, the public might request better engineering service, or specialization of the engineering license, as practiced in the legal and medical professions. PEO and OSPE might take different positions on these issues. PEO might not see the need for engineering specialization in licensure, while OSPE would push for it in the interest of members who would get a better value for their licence from their employer.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
I trust that PEO and OSPE work as unique community, to strengthen the preservation of engineering self-regulation and generally supporting the engineering profession. Although there are differences between the OSPE and PEO mandates, there is no conflict for the profession, since in the case of any issues or misunderstanding between two groups, things can be solved by open communication.
As PEO and OSPE have complementary missions they can both work to promote the engineering license to the public. Both PEO and OSPE, can use their experiences, development and contributions to knowledge by presentation, development of codes and standards, sharing of resources, provision of opportunities for professionals, opening a dialogue on lessons learned in the safety field and on environmental issues.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
The current accord between PEO and OSPE seems to be effective in defining the respective roles of the regulatory and advocacy bodies, and it provides a mechanism to resolve disputes that may arise. Continued cooperation depends on both parties adhering to the spirit of the accord, and ensuring that it is reviewed and amended as the needs of both organizations change.
There will continue to be areas where it is practical for only one organization to be involved, but in areas of shared interest or shared volunteer resources, it makes sense to seek synergies to optimize successes for all parties.
It’s important to make our respective memberships aware of the accord, and to develop an understanding that we’re on the same team, but our actions are restricted by the positions we play.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
Regarding self-regulation and advocacy, OSPE should ensure its advocacy work does not impede protection of the public and continued self-regulation of the profession by PEO, neither should OSPE pursue regulatory activities. Likewise, PEO must ensue that self-regulation remains front and centre in its work, but without impeding advocacy. That said, there is an important intersection between OSPE and PEO within which we need collegial debate and discussion to advance both roles. I'd look at how the other senior professions do this, e.g. medical and law, and see what works and what does not. My sense is that "solid citizens" in both our organizations can do this well enough together and resolve any conflicts.

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
a. OSPE and PEO need to stop holding hands as we go for our walks through the forest. I believe the “spirit of cooperation” has resulted in unclear direction for both organizations, and I do not believe it needs to be built further. As a lapsed OSPE Member, I admit to not being as in tune with the joint efforts of these two organizations. I do believe that as OSPE evolves and focuses its efforts on serving the individual engineer conflict with PEO is necessary, but need not be destructive. OSPE needs to focus efforts on representing the member, to the society and to the elected officials. Examples of such include being leaders of the engineer’s interest with respect to secondary liability insurance, legal protection and employment support.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
OSPE and PEO could strengthen their relationship by OSPE providing a job contact network for unemployed or internationally trained engineers similar to what the OMA does for doctors. OMA provides an HR contact person at every hospital where doctors can apply for a job. OSPE should do the same for engineers.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
Still the general membership is not aware of the use and distinguish functionalities. It would be nice to emphasize the basic inter-related and other use for the general membership.

>Back to list of Questions

Question 2: The 2009 Engineering and Technology Labour Market Survey confirmed that female enrolment in engineering continues to lag behind that of other professions. In fact, in the last decade, the percentage of women studying engineering has declined. How can PEO and OSPE work together to engage traditionally under-represented groups in science and math? What can we do to encourage them to pursue careers in these areas?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
I believe that in addition to traditional engineering roles, many young women wish to engage in "people" related engineering ,such as in the medical and physical science areas. Prof. Margaritus, Leader in Bio-Engineering at Western tells me 50% or more of his students are female, supporting my view that we need to provide courses and degrees that have appeal to the "helping of people" to significantly improve the attraction of females.
PEO should assist the universities in developing these types of discipline sorely needed in Society.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
WEAC was created to help lead us in responding to these questions. I think we should continue to take their advice and support them as much as possible.
As President in 2000/2001 I attended several events/conferences organized by WEAC and women in engineering as a guest speaker. Such visible signs of support are tangible evidence that the Profession cares about this issue.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
As the regulator of the practice of engineering, Professional Engineers Ontario must continue issuing licences to those qualified and competent to practice engineering through a fair, equitable and expeditious process. Professional Engineers Ontario also has an obligation to promote professional engineering as a career choice so that there is an ample supply of qualified practitioners in the future. PEO and OSPE volunteers already work together on programs such as Engineer In Residence in elementary and secondary schools to introduce Engineering as a viable career choice for all students, regardless of ethnicity or gender. It is important to continue to support and expand this type of program, by encouraging more volunteer participation by Professional Engineers. I am aware of one spectacular program in the Listowel District Secondary School that exposes students to the work of engineers because I have been a classroom volunteer. This is one model program that could be rolled out into more schools, with the help of more professional volunteers.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
PEO has an education outreach program. They go out to schools, sometimes with OSPE in a coordinated effort. Some PEO chapters are really good at this and others don’t do anything.
OSPE has its own outreach program to universities. They have also supported Go Eng Girl since it started. They are working with other associations across the country, but, clearly, both organizations have to do more.
PEO and OSPE need to partner and go to government to get more funding for this. We need more volunteers to go out to meetings with educators and school boards. We need to demonstrate the economic value of engineers to these bodies.
We have a problem with the image of engineers and we must work harder to communicate to the public and government the vital role that we play in society. We can’t do this without funding.
We need more interactive programs for women, internationally trained engineers and students. We need to go to the schools and celebrate engineering. We do more than just build bridges. Engineering is about innovation and public safety.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
PEO and OSPE could work together to coordinate their educational programs and eventually establish a joint education committee (with proper funding) with specific targets to engage not only female but also traditionally under-represented groups in Ontario in science and math. PEO chapters would be an excellent means to deliver such an integrated program, since many of them are already involved in various school outreach projects. We need to synergize our efforts and financial means to get a better return.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
Having a 9.5 percent rate of female engineers in the 72000 members of PEO, along with the low percentage of practicing female engineers in engineering field, and especially in decision making positions in work places, are reasons for PEO to become more proactive. I am motivated to run in order to share my experience during years of my career and I have encouraged many female engineers to enter the profession..
I believe that PEO and OSPE can work together in enrolling female engineers and students by:
• Creating career opportunities for young female engineers and students through public presentations, Coop programs, networking, public events and workshops in companies, community centers and PEO chapter meetings. Providing presentations by successful female engineers, organizing conferences on females in engineering, and introducing successful female engineers to the public.
• Advocacy advertising in PEO, OSPE, and other engineering organizations such as Canadian Chemical, Medical and Biological Engineering website (also through media, schools, universities, transit systems, libraries and community centers) will promote the enrolment of female students and new female engineers to this profession.
• Providing scholarships for woman in biomedical and environmental engineering programs.
• Based on my own experience during university strong structured internships with the cooperation of companies/organizations starting from the early years of studying, under the supportive and knowledgeable presence of experienced engineers will help students and graduates to fill gaps between theory and practice and to establish strong relationships in the work place.
• The Pan-Canadian framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign
Credentials will help internationally trained females to enter the profession and to raise their profiles in the labor market. Presentations, seminars and forums will also help internationally trained females to overcome barriers and minimizes the difficulties of finding jobs in the engineering profession.
• The Go ENG Girl Event is providing girls and their parents with the opportunity to learn about engineering programs and rewarding careers and job opportunities that are available in the engineering industry.
• National Engineering Week /National Engineering Month, mentoring, meetings, classroom activities, trip to science centers, public events, fairs, could support female students.
• Practicing female engineers visit to schools and making connection with students and their parents via explaining about the engineering field and providing them with guidance about future careers in the engineering.
• Making links with community centers to raise public awareness regarding innovations in science and technology.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
It’s a fallacy to assume that the demographic for any profession should be representative of the larger demographic of Canadian – or Ontarian – society. The same labour market survey indicated that decisions to enter the engineering profession were not influenced by any limits to training or ability, but rather by a preference for other career options.
PEO and OSPE should continue to promote the value of the profession, but actions to engage groups that are deemed to be under-represented should be limited to identifying any real or perceived barriers to entry to our profession, and working to remove those barriers. In the end, engineering is not about gender, ethnicity, politics or socio-economic classifications; it is about the engineer’s ability to practice competently within his or her field of training and experience.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
We must be vigilent to ensure equality of opportunity between men and women in engineering but we should be very wary of trying to "socially engineer" equality of outcome. While reducing barriers to entry for women, and to continuing practice by women engineers, we must make sure that policies aimed at increasing the number of women in engineering do not reduce standards or competence in the profession, nor result in prejudicing men (an example of the "law of unintended consequences" - a frequent result of careless public policy development.) It's a given that students entering engineering school require a superior math and science ability. Alleged female aversion to science and math is a disturbing issue, believed to start in high school and exacerbated by society-at-large. Here's some data on SAT math scores, one of several websites on topic: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/07/more-on-the-male-female-sat-math-test-gap/ . We must determine what is going on here before we jump in with simplistic policies.

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
The problem with such information is that a trend is identified, which is being extrapolated to mean there is a problem. First and foremost, PEO and OSPE must endeavour to understand why this is occurring. Once that is known, then a plan of action may need to be developed. Is the problem that fewer are studying engineering because of the curriculum, or are they finding more rewarding careers elsewhere. PEO’s public protection mandate means that the Association must maintain high standards and be vigilant in verifying that all those seeking licensure meet the standards. Review of these standards being applied by PEO may be necessary to ensure that they remain fair and accessible to all. OSPE, through Women In Science and Engineering, may be better able to tap into educational resources to provide insight on teaching methods which may result in these trends. Both of these are examples of undertakings should the identification of the problem be with the standards. Other actions would need to be developed once the trend is understood.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
PEO already has a National Engineering Month where all students are encouraged to go into the engineering profession with talks and competitions. Three years ago Etobicoke Chapter started a high school completion titled “Engineering Idol”. This competition has expanded from 3 to now 12 schools in the GTA. OSPE should consider helping out by finding financial support in the community.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
Need to have a good authorized program to reach out all the schools. Need some high level links between the school system to establish this.

>Back to list of Questions

Question 3: The Green Energy Act is one of a number of steps the government is taking to develop a green economy. What role can PEO and OSPE play to promote and prepare engineers for green collar jobs?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
Similarily, PEO should recommend the need of green subject specialization in university syllabi, as this will be one of the new areas of development.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
This is an excellent question. The Green Economy represents considerable new opportunities for Engineers and engineering. The Domestic content rules in the new Green Energy Act mean we will need Ontario/Canada manufacturing of key components. These also need to be designed here. So there are great engineering opportunities in the industrial sector. Also, these systems need to be installed, so there is Infrastructure impact which is again engineering.
The Feed-in-Tariff rates will drive the growth in this sector as long as they are at high levels. Of course this will also mean that non-qualified people will attempt to get involved and cause problems for the unsuspecting public. So the profession needs to act. In this case, the Ontario government has given us a protective umbrella – wish this were so for many other Canadian industries that we have lost due to Canada’s extremely soft rules for foreign ownership (latest e.g. is Nortel).
In this case, we need to support the Ontario government’s initiative.
At the simplest level, promote this area and our support for the Green Act. The public needs to hear this.
PEO should consider creating an official mark and a Specialty to cover the Renewable Energy field. This will lead to engineering faculties creating new programs focused on this Energy sector. It will also lead to efforts by PEO & OSPE to establish Demand legislation that will strengthen rights to practice in this field. Basically, we need to ensure that P.Eng’s are responsible for the key engineering tasks.
PEO’s Enforcement committee can also play a role right now. AS a good example, the CSA standard C448.1 states that only a P.Eng. can design a Commercial system for Geothermal Exchange. There is a wild west condition in this field now so anyone who has any idea of what to do is jumping in. It would not be too difficult to send out a PEO enforcement inspector to sites that have put in a Commercial system and ensure that a P.Eng was responsible for them. This leads naturally to the question of how do we know about such systems, which is a good opportunity for PEO and OSPE to ensure that effective reporting legislation is in place. For example, submission of an environmental impact report to the Minister of environment and the list of reports could be shared with PEO. The idea is to use government inspections and reports as PEO’s eyes for enforcement.
These ideas are just skimming the surface of what can be done. I would strongly recommend a joint task force between PEO and OSPE be initiated to discuss these and other strategies so that a well coordinated plan can be put in place.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
The Green Energy Act provides countless opportunities for Professional Engineers. By their nature, Engineers recognize opportunities to contribute their skills and experience. I know many Engineers who have recognized the opportunities created by the various aspects of the Green Energy Act and have taken action to develop those opportunities.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
PEO should develop standards and regulations as necessary, to be adhered to by engineers who are working in the Green Energy area.
OSPE should continue in its role of advocacy with government to develop policy plans.
As well, OSPE has held one Climate Change conference with the ArcelorMittal Dofasco Centre for Engineering and Public Policy at McMaster University in 2008 and there is another one taking place in April of this year exploring the effect of Climate Change on the Great Lakes, and what can be done to help.
We also need to find local engineers to tackle local problems. We can’t take engineers from Southern Ontario and ask them to work on issues that are unique to Northern Ontario.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
In order to ensure that the Act is as meaningful and effective as possible, PEO and OSPE should work together on emphasizing the need for environmental conservation and green energy to its members. Regarding further steps, PEO and OSPE must be proactive in promoting and further developing the green economy. They must be involved at the earlier stages of the legislative process bringing the engineer’s point of view to government in order to contribute actively and positively to the overall economy of Ontario and Canada.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
Collaboration between PEO and OSPE should play an important role in preparing and inspiring engineers and students to be involved in the green movement and to advise of opportunities for working in green jobs by:
• Coop programs, presentations and networking to advertise all different elements of areas during the green energy week .
• Highlighting the availability of green collar jobs through media, schools, universities will promote the enrollment of students and new engineers in green jobs.
• National Engineering Week /National Engineering Month which are annual events could be perfect tools to raise awareness of the importance of green jobs in daily life and encourage young people to consider green collar careers.
• Providing scholarships for those want to study and work in the green industry.
• I believe that the recent career planning session organized by OSPE created a good opportunity for engineers who wanted to know how to become involved in the green industry. Last summer during my visit to the Green festival held on Dundas, I was impressed by the creativity of presenters some very simple devices that were on display could have a big impact on energy saving.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
PEO’s responsibility is to ensure that any relevant engineering qualifications under this Act are well understood, and that licensees are duly qualified to practice in this area. OSPE, through its partnership with EPIC, can offer training in relevant technologies and working with the associated legislation.
Since green energy initiatives are typically justified as a way of offsetting conditions that are also linked to climate change, there is an opportunity for PEO and OSPE to build real credibility for the profession, rather than appearing to look after the economic interests of engineers and their employers.
The reality of climate change behooves both PEO and OSPE to work with government on legislation to improve infrastructure and building standards that are appropriate to the current trends of extreme weather. This would be a proactive step toward showing that the profession is concerned about public safety, and is ready to do something constructive to maintain it.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
The "green intiative" will benefit engineers since we are the main deliverers of "green" products, the "greening" of processes and developing "green" energy sources. One example: achieving a capital cost for photovoltaic cells of $1 per watt (as an EE I can say this is a most worthy goal!) Another is improving battery technology (cost, capacity and weight), also manufacturing methods. We've also got to get the capital cost of "wind" down and develop better "wave" generators. Successful outcomes in these endeavors would provide huge economic benefits, opportunities for industry (new products and, we hope, Ontario manufacturing), and cleaner air - all good societal objectives regardless of actual climate change scenarios. To make the most of this, OSPE and PEO should promote innovation and competence in engineering practice (consistent with their respective roles - see Q1, above) so that Ontario can lead in the field. PEO might review the "green focus" education and engineering specialites required for the Licence, e.g. the Engineering Physics discipline comes to mind. OSPE should continue to promote professional development and continuing education, including "green" technologies. In summary, the "green" initiative is a great opportunity for engineers to serve society well beyond today's narrow political focus and, at the same time, allow engineeers to build really interesting careers. Overall: a "win-win" scenario!

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
PEO must ensure that where emerging technologies are being developed, wherein professional engineering is involved, that appropriate measures are in place to license the individuals. This means that development of “board sheets” by the Academic Requirements Committee must be reviewed and updated. Simply pushing a square peg into the round hole will not be appropriate, we must adapt. OSPE may be the leader in identifying such areas and through its committees may develop and promote the concept to the public of such.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
Both organizations should educate engineers with talks, seminars/courses what green jobs are all about, what sectors are involved, and what companies are and will be providing employment.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
Need some funded programs to introduce this in industrial and other areas.Engineers can take the lead on this by getting involve EIT's and other mentees to impliment these plans. So, the engineers will motivate and devote themselves to become specialists on this.

>Back to list of Questions

Question 4: PEO, with the creation of the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy, joins OSPE in engaging engineers in discussions of public policy. What opportunities exist for PEO and OSPE to collaborate in this area all the while maintaining their distinct mandate?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
The Centre should be submitting, reviewing and vetting proposed Government interests and legislative proposals, using the expertise of our members, paying for expert's well thought out views if necessary.
PEO/OSPE should combine in research of new technologies of competitive advantage to Ontario. This is a shared responsibility and we must develop a transparent mechanism to deal with it.
Both parties should be leading our Province in generating the new economy using new engineering technologies. We need to generate jobs and income to pay for our social programs. What a glorious opportunity to focus our efforts.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
This new PEO function is a little perplexing. There are several points in its ‘mission’ that overlap OSPE’s role and should be removed from the Center’s role. The most useful and significant point is to:
“communicate more frequently, clearly and proactively on the contributions of the engineering profession to public safety, health, well-being and economic growth;”
Canadian Engineering has often shown it is world class. The AVRo Arrow is perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of a company that was perhaps decades ahead of its time (inventing jet air travel) with over 20,000 jobs affected and billions of dollars of profitable sales imminent. Yet the company was killed by the stroke of a political pen. The engineering was great. Even the marketing and sales was done well and the company was succeeding. But we lost because of the lack of political contact. We (the profession) were not at the table when the decision was made.
More recently, we similarly did nothing when Nortel went into bankruptcy protection. Here again we have a world class leader in digital communication technology (they invented it!) that gets decimated while at the same time our Federal government gives billions of dollars to foreign owned automotive companies. There are many other examples like this.
This one objective is enough to keep PEO and OSPE busy for a long time when one considers the impact of these examples and many others as well.
These political decisions hurt Canadian engineers and they hurt our economy badly. We need to be very public about such things, so we can reduce them in future.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
The Ontario Centre for Engineering in Public Policy was established to bring the consideration of accurately represented scientific and technological principles into the formation of public policy in Ontario. Topics range from “green energy” to transit to safety to support for industrial development.
Like the Government Liaison Program, the Center for Engineering in Public Policy is intended to inject an Engineering viewpoint into legislation. The Government Liaison Program is directed at the politicians who control and influence the legislative process, that they will ensure consideration of Engineering viewpoints. The Center for Engineering in Public Policy is directed at the civil servants and their advisors who draft the legislation. The Centre provides a high profile forum for debate and dialogue around legislation and policy in an engineering context.
The challenge for PEO is to find a sustainable funding model for the Centre. There are many ways in which OSPE could make substantial contributions.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
Again, PEO and OSPE should stick to their mandates. We must not be seen as being in competition with one another. We need to work on clear messages to government that represent all engineers. We cannot go to government policy makers as two different bodies with different messages. There should be no uncertainty as to what OSPE and PEO stand for and what their mandates are.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
PEO, OSPE and OCEPP should have as a common goal to make sure that the public knows that engineers are highly qualified professionals, are doing the best work for their money and that they are the only experts in engineering related issues when governments are issuing policies. Engineers’ voice must be heard in the right places for the superior benefit of the public, province and country.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
This cooperation creates a great opportunity for both PEO and OSPE committees to work together, to ensure that engineers are viewed as key partners in ensuring public safety, and rasing public awareness of the engineering profession to increase public support.
The reality is that both mandates could share a common goal to expand the interests of all professional engineers. The advantages are keeping the engineers up to date about new legislation and developments of particular interest to the profession. Simultaneously this could deliver professional development programs regarding changes in the profession and technology, for the benefit of engineering society and public interest. I personally was inspired by presentations regarding infrastructure in OCEPP and I trust that there are experienced existing engineers that can work together to provide networking programs to share experiences and lessons learned, whilst developing interpersonal and communication skill and personal productivity.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
I think that the respective forays of PEO and OSPE into public policy are distinct and motivated by their specific interests. OSPE seeks to engage engineers in public policy discussion to enhance to value of our profession in the eyes of the public and government. PEO is at the table to ensure that it’s regulating the appropriate areas of practice, and that policy doesn’t interfere with its ability to regulate the profession.
The Centre for Engineering and Public Policy is currently accountable to PEO Council, but it’s intended to operate independently from PEO’s explicit mandate under the Professional Engineers Act. There is no restriction on OSPE from contributing to the work of the Centre, and OSPE is welcome to submit papers for publication in the Centre’s Journal, or suggest areas for study or expanded discussion. OSPE is also welcome to commission the Centre to undertake studies on its behalf.
It’s also important that the Centre maintain some operational objectivity from its sponsors, so that the outcome of any studies are not influenced by or otherwise biased to support pre-existing hypotheses of either the regulator or the advocacy body. The Centre must not be in the position of shaping information to fit a particular conclusion or strategic objective – otherwise it will have failed in its role of operating in the public interest.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
Both organizations have a responsibilty to influence public policy by increasing the lobbying of government by engineers over that by "the chattering and scribbling classes". Reason: we know better how the physical world works, what engineering solutions will work to meet given public policy goals (and most importantly, what will not work) and what proposed solutions will cost. Basically, OSPE should lobby for the best possible use of engineers under various public policy initiatives and PEO should ensure that the Engineering Act provides consistent, real protection of the public. Incidentally, both PEO and OSPE should protect any engineer who, having taken a reasoned and proper stand on a public policy issue, has attracted harassment by government, by an NGO or by industry (we trust there would be very few such incidents.) PEO is a source of ideas, information and funding to the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (OCEPP) but, while OSPE and PEO support its goals, the provision of good professional and fiscal management oversight by PEO is vital. Both PEO and OSPE can also provide volunteers to OCEPP. On my webpage http://solrac.ca/roger_jones/ I suggest a novel, individual paring of individual engineers and MP's and MPP's in the various ridings. I extend that to City Councillors, too. We have to get more politicians talking to and seeking the opinions of engineers, one on one.

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
I must say, this Centre is one that is not well understood by the average engineer. In fact, until seeking election on Council, I had only a vague knowledge that it existed and certainly did not know what it stood for. The primary opportunity that both PEO and OSPE must embark on is to provide to all licensed engineers an explanation of what this is and why it is important. Both organizations must also provide opportunity for all to be involved. This creature, if left to only those who are within easy commuting distance of Queen’s Park, will further alienate the average engineer.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
My view is that the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy should provide incentives for governments to provide funds for research and innovation for engineers in various engineering discipline endeavours for the betterment of mankind.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
Appoint Pengs to each board as a advicers. Get them involve and visible in each sector.

>Back to list of Questions

Question 5: Recently, provincial and federal governments agreed to a pan-Canadian framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Credentials. Engineering is one of eight priority professions identified in this framework. How will this affect PEO operations? How can the profession strengthen efforts to support internationally-trained engineers as they seek meaningful employment in their field?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
We can support foreign educated engineers by continuing to generate a new National Licence in which they will feel at home. This licence would include application criteria as at present, using ARC/ERC interviews and examinations for non CEAB graduates. We should also be more helpful in arranging courses with universities so that both the breadth and depth of education and experience is maintained in the most fair and equitable manner.
The experience foreign trained engineers already have should be augmented by Canadian experience during the application period and counted towards their required year of Canadian experience where possible.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
The Engineering profession has been a leader in this respect. We are the only profession in Canada to have a mobility agreement already. We also have been very pro-active via Engineers Canada on international matters with respect to assessing foreign credentials. Rather than being told what to do, we should be doing the telling and advise others how to follow our lead. We have good processes now in place so let’s let them work for us. While I was PEO President, the leader of the opposition, Dalton McGuinty, asked the key PEO people down to Queen’s Park and gave us a Publically exposed award for being one of the most proactive professions with respect to immigrant professionals.
Fundamentally, the problem is that Canada needs more engineering (especially if we gave Canadian firms more protection from take over). At the same time, we have an excess of Engineers, the majority of whom are not doing engineering ! So something is very wrong with the way our nation and province has organized its engineering resources. Clearly, if this was improved both our Canadian graduates as well as immigrant engineers would be in a better position to obtain engineering employment.
Speaking specifically to the plight of the new immigrant engineer, many come here expecting the land of milk and honey and then run into issues of how do they get their licence. We have improved on this by setting up the PEO web site to allow applications from anywhere there is an Internet connection. Applicants can be assessed and assigned examinations all remotely. They can even elect to take courses in their native land and sit for PEO invigilated exams in their own country. There is no need what so ever for a foreign engineer to come to Ontario now and be surprised.
I recently participated in a live video conference with Philippine Engineers interested in coming to Canada. This was sponsored by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce from their Toronto facility. PEO and OSPE can work with such organizations to do more of this kind of direct promotion. I made the point several times during my presentation that those interested should immediately apply on-line before doing anything else. I will be participating in another such live video conference in Feb 2010 with engineers from New Delhi, India.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
Engineers are leading all other professions of Ontario in providing fair access to people having academic credential and engineering experience outside the Province. The fairness commissioner has recognized Professional Engineers Ontario for its leadership in recognizing experience and credentials of applicants for licensure in Ontario. I believe our association should continue to lead in this area.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
PEO needs to be more flexible but not at the expense of public safety. It needs to support OSPE’s efforts to embrace internationally-trained engineers. We should encourage the employment of internationally-trained engineers. They should be able to work in an engineering environment as they have the knowledge and experience that could be put to good use. If we support them by hiring them, giving them an opportunity, they will certainly take the proper steps to become licensed through PEO.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
We are living in a global village and certainly we have Canadian and foreign trained engineers licensed as Professional Engineers. I do not think that PEO operations will be affected. PEO has very clear standards for licensure and reached out accordingly to internationally trained engineers in their application process for licensure. PEO is in the forefront of the regulatory bodies in this area in Ontario in implementing a series of actions to support internationally trained engineers to understand the licensure process and guide them through it.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
Since more than one-third of Ontario’s 72000 licensed engineers, and half of PEO elected presidents were educated and trained outside Canada, I believe that the integration of foreign educated engineers into our society is important. This can be done by welcoming and engaging them and by sharing and encouraging their developed skills. These would be the key parameters in benefiting from internationally trained engineers in the development of Canada’s engineering society.
This new model will allow foreign trained professional to have a smoother application process as this model has an advantage compared to the old credential criteria. This is because it is improving foreign qualification assessment by expanding criteria such as foreign work experience, education and knowledge, thereby creating a more objective and fair evaluation of immigrant engineers. This practical approach swiftly integrates them in the profession, and allows them to put forward their best skills and knowledge to work, for the benefit of the society whilst meeting PEO’s entry standards.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
The discussion on recognition of foreign credentials seems to have been conducted without significant consultation with the constituent regulators. A fairly open immigration policy has led to thousands of foreign-trained professionals arriving in Canada with expectations that they will be granted expedited licensing in their fields of training, but no consideration was given as to how they would meet the licensing requirements in various Canadian jurisdictions. It’s inconsistent for government to rely on the regulators to assure the public that its practitioners are competent, and at the same time to apply pressure to recognize foreign credentials.
There can be no equitable recognition of foreign credentials until the constituent members of Engineers Canada have established a national framework for licensing, and a means to bring parity to the individual licensing requirements for all twelve engineering regulators.
The role of PEO should only be to ensure that there are no restrictive barriers to licensure for foreign-trained applicants, but it’s explicitly outside PEO’s regulatory mandate to assist any applicant in finding employment within their field of training. The extent of PEO’s assistance is to support the mentorship programs that are administered by its chapters to assist all applicants in their early career development.
OSPE has a little more flexibility to assist applicants with gaining meaningful employment, possibly by granting access to its Career Centre for initial employment opportunities. It’s important that neither OSPE nor PEO are in a position of offering preferential services to foreign-trained engineers, and that any assistance is available equally to all applicants for licensure.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
It's tough on new Canadians wanting to break into engineering to get a start. I've had many letters and CV's from them and have hired some. The evaluation of the real, hands-on abilities of foreign trained engineers in the Canadian context must improve and be done more promptly. An honest evaluation of what "Canadian experience" really means and how useful this is, or is not, is required. In my long experience "Canadian experience" is primarily an indication of good communications ability, of no small importance; it also can be an indication of competence from references. OSPE (and PEO) should develop the ability to judge the real, practical value in Ontario of foreign qualifications, using any and all resources available (universities, industry feedback, references, etc.), and keep the policy current. We should avoid "sins of omission" (keeping competent, foreign-trained engineers out of the practice), as well as "sins of commission" (allowing less than fully competent foreign-trained engineers into the practice under political or social pressure.) Importantly, OSPE will have to resolve the matter of the potential increased supply of engineers (from foreign-trained engineers) when so many of our members are presently unemployed, under-employed and/or underpaid.

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
I have in my past involvement on PEO Council had the opportunity to meet with those from other associations across Canada. In so doing, I heard from a few that thought that Ontario had an efficient system developed, as it received some of the highest numbers of foreign educated and foreign trained applicants. Having participated on PEO’s Licensing Process Task Force, I believe that considerable effort is placed on verifying and assessing foreign credentials. I believe that PEO will play a key role in developing systems to undertake this which will benefit all provincial associations. As such, PEO may become a “clearing house” for foreign trained engineers or may need to be recruited as part of a system to develop and train other associations to maintain the rigour necessary for public protection when assessing foreign credentials of applicants for licensure. PEO, through its Provisional License, has since 2003 put in place a system to recognize those whose only shortfall to full licensure is the one year’s experience in a Canadian jurisdiction. Should other pan-Canadian programs be identified with respect to this I believe that PEO will be at the forefront.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
A PEO mentorship program for internationally trained engineers should assist in educating engineers as well as providing them with confidence to seek employment by accessing OSPE’s job contact network.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
PEO should keep the whole authority for assessing and controlling this profession. We should strongly object otherwise.

>Back to list of Questions

Question 6: For many years, the engineering profession has discussed implementing specialty designations. What are your thoughts on the issue? Should specialty designations be made a priority for PEO in 2010?

Answers:

David Adams, P.Eng., M.B.A., FEC. (website) - running for President-Elect
A Speciality designation may be of benefit to those who use it as a marketing tool and indeed gain from assuring clients of special knowledge in particular areas and circumstances. However, these designations should not reduce the qualifying knowledge and experience of the PEng. or prevent them from competing for work.
Specialities could also be helpful in defining new fields of practice. This should be a priority in 2010, if we hope to attract graduates to PEO membership and regulation, to protect the public.

Peter M. DeVita, MASc, MBA, P.Eng., CET, MCIPS, MADR, F.E.C. (website) - running for President-Elect
This is an important factor, but creating JOBS is key priority especially entrepreneurship by engineers so they can create new Cdn companies and Cdn jobs.
Specialties should be created along with some other key concern. For example, the Renewable Energy example raised earlier opens the door for this possibility. In my view, a specialty responds to an issue that has been raised with respect to defining the scopes of practice for a specific area of practice. Such scopes are then embedded into demand legislation to create ‘rights to practice’ which is the essence of licensure. There are too many sub-disciplines to tackle all at once so a long term approach is more reasonable. There is confusion however, in the fundamental concept of a specialty and that needs some work.
There are some that think establishing an Official Mark is all that is required to establish a specialty. This is a very shallow understanding of the core concept behind licensing and corresponding rights to practice. In my view, the bottom line with Specialties is to use these to properly cover all the disciplines that do not now have exclusive rights to practice. This impacts over 70% of engineers in their current disciplines. To tackle all these disciplines at once becomes a virtually impossible task. The ONLY way to do this is to partition the problem. By subdividing into distinct disciplines that we call Specialties, we can incrementally move towards 100% practice coverage of all engineering areas of practice. So the concept of ‘Specialties’ needs to be looked at as a coping strategy to the large task of proper licensing of all engineering. By the way, the day has long past where government will accept just “P.Eng” to refer to the talent needed in specific legislation. The term ‘Qualified Person’ is more often used which is detrimental to engineers. A ‘P.Eng, Specialty’ reference would be far more powerful a reference in a Act, but only if we’ve properly defined what such a person needs to know and do, to obtain such a designation,
I should note that emerging disciplines provide an excellent platform to naturally establish a new Specialty. In this case, the core body of knowledge and the areas of exclusive practice are methodically examined and documented. Typically this takes two to five years of work by a Task Force meeting monthly. This is not trivial and takes a high level of expertise. So far, I have initiated or participated in every PEO Emerging Discipline Task Force. The two in current discussion are ‘Communication Infrastructure and Networking’ (Internet related), and ‘Nanotechnology and Molecular Engineering’. Expect to see the first reports on the Body of Knowledge from these task forces this spring.

John O. Vieth, P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
Professional Engineers Ontario is developing policy around the designation of engineering specialties. Implementation of these specialties must, first and foremost, serve and protect the public interest. For example, the specialties need to be properly defined so as not to cause confusion about which specialties are required for a particular scope of engineering work. I believe work on this policy development should continue in 2010.

Daniel (Danny) J. Young, M.ENG., P.Eng. (website) - running for President-Elect
Since 2007 International Engineering Graduates with a Bachelor of Engineering or Applied Science Degree have had the opportunity to apply for PEO’s professional engineer licence at no cost, and they should continue to offer this. OSPE has developed a Preparatory Course for the Professional Practice Exam (PPE), as Administered by PEO specifically for internationally-trained engineers, and changed its bylaw to make joining OSPE easier. But more needs to be done, and both PEO and OSPE need to work together.
With regards to specialty designations, this is something that has been done very successfully in other professions. For instance, in the medical profession, you see your general practitioner and they send you to a trained medical specialist if certain treatment is required. Recently, we have only created specialists when the need has come up. When there is a water crisis or a demolition crisis, we create the specialization for those particular areas. I believe we should look across the board and create specialist distinctions for the different categories of engineering now. Let’s be proactive, not reactive.

Should specialty designations be made a priority for PEO in 2010?
Yes. It’s a big job and it will take a lot of effort but this is something that will be good for all engineers and the public. It will lead to increased stature and a more positive image for engineers in society, and it will improve the economic interests of all engineers.
Let’s face it. Engineers are problem solvers. The bigger the challenge, the greater the satisfaction when the job is done right. That’s how we approach difficult tasks – head on. I’m not just talking about specialty designations. I’m talking about working together as problem solvers for the betterment of society and for all of us as engineers.

Corneliu E. Chisu, Maj (ret'd), CD, PMSC, CET, FEC, M.Eng., P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
Certainly PEO should look at this issue seriously, following a proper approach and peer review. Our profession needs to seriously consider specialty designations in professional practice. The P.Eng. licence currently bestows the right to provide engineering services without defining the area(s) of practice as other regulated professions in the province of Ontario do. Specialty designations should be created by PEO who is the regulatory body. Specialty designations will contribute by strengthening the profession's credibility in the eye of the public and give due recognition to members by their employers.

Shokoh Fatahi, B.Sc., MA.Sc.,Ph.D., MCIC, P.Eng. (website) - running for Vice-President
Specialty designation is a complex issue, and the answer isn’t yes or no. The issue should be tabled for more discussion, but there are higher priorities that PEO needs to focus on, such as developing structured internship program for young engineers, integration foreign trained engineers in the profession.

Clifford L. Knox, M.B.A, FEC, P.Eng.- running for Vice-President
Specialist designations are typically used as a device to convince the public that licensees are qualified to practice in specifically defined areas, but do little to assure effective regulation of those areas of practice. Such designations are best applied to niche areas of practice, but are not as effective for broad areas of practice.
PEO currently has only one specialist designation – the Building Design Specialist (BDS). This designation was created as a counter measure to the BCIN that was created under the Bill 124 for the Building Code statute amendment. Since PEO won its appeal of Bill 124, the relevance of the BDS has diminished, and there are relatively few practitioners who have applied for the designation. Moreover, there is scarcely any public awareness of the designation or indication that it has enhanced public confidence in the profession.
There have been recent pitches for a specialist designation in Software Engineering, and a suggestion that this could be an approach to capturing emerging disciplines such as nanotechnology or biomedical engineering. Unfortunately, each of these fields can support multiple specializations, however the numbers of qualified persons that might seek a specific designation is likely so small that it cannot justify the cost of creating and maintaining the specialization. Most importantly, the public interest would already be served by having the practitioner licensed, and there would be little, if any, benefit to having a specialist designation in addition to a P.Eng. licence.
PEO must be able to regulate its licensees effectively, whether their fields of practice are generalized or highly specialized. I’m not convinced that the creation of new specialist designations is the best way for PEO to regulate a diverse range of engineering practice.

Roger Jones, DIC, M.Phil, MBA, Life-Senior MIEEE, P.Eng. (website) - running for Councillor-at-Large
I support specialty designations - its time has come and, difficult as it is, we can't duck it forever. The technical world of engineering has become so complex that the traditional designation "P.Eng." no longer defines competence in so many engineering fields, e.g. nuclear, aviation, software, embedded systems, medical equipment... and so many others. We are in danger of losing the ability to self-regulate the profession if we continue to abdicate these specialty areas of practice. A good start might be Software Engineering (some good work done here already), also Embedded Systems (hardware and software) as so many of these applications now impact product and process safety directly, e.g. interlocks, medical radiation dose control, "fly-by-wire" and a variety of control systems...

Allen K. Lucas, P.Eng. - running for Councillor-at-Large
Today, society in general is looking to specialty credentials. Regrettably, what is seen as a credential may be little more than a recognition of continued competence, or may be bestowed by a third party. For PEO to define specialist designations would be little more than a self declaration and would serve no public benefit, without some form of qualifications review possibly including testing. At present, the Consulting Designation, is little more than a self declaration following a number of years of offering service to the public. This provides little value to the engineer and no protection to the public, but rather appears to the consumer as providing something. I do not believe that PEO should make this a priority for 2010, or at all.

Michael Chan, P.Eng,. C.ENG., M.IMECHE, MHKIE (website) - running for East Central Region Councillor
Please click here to view Mr. Chan's consolidated response to the questions.

George A. Senkiw, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
PEO priorities are developed by PEO Council. Whether specialty designation should be one of PEO’s 2010 priorities I can’t say.

Pappur N. Shankar, P.Eng. - running for West Central Region Councillor
PEO should set up time limit for speciality programs and implement by priorities, not just keep discussing.

>Back to list of Questions