1. A person holding professional status should be held to strict standards due to the fact of
that person possessing highly specialized knowledge and skills that have the ability to
affect the public at a larger scale. The best way to impose this is to have professional
associations participate in investigations and decide the punishment for ones who
violated the code of ethics. Depending on the severity of the violation, license
suspension, fines, prohibition from practising engineering or/and jailtime.
2. In a way, I believe the American licensing system is better, since having to pass 2
national exams ensures that the future professional has retained all the necessary
knowledge after completing their degree. Similar to the Canadian system, applicants in
the US are still required to have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited program and
earn 4 years of relevant experience in the industry. It would be a bit harder for the
applicant, but the ability to practise engineering, supervise and seal projects that affect
the general public should require a more rigorous selection process. Fairness and
protection should be the main criterion.
1. Bob Nazarian, Robert Wood, city municipality, PEO and the rest of engineers and
architects that failed report an actual issue.
2. Reporting all the faults in structure to the owner and city municipality, in case of the
owner failing to fix the structure and pass the inspection, the owner should have been
fined.
3. PEO introduced a requirement to submit a report from qualified Structural Engineering
Specialist, raised the standard for engineers that supervise non-engineers and
engineers, created a register for any counts of misconduct and incompetence for
engineers, which could be seen by any member of the public.