A bit ironic that practicing members of Professional Engineers Ontario almost certainly depend on software written by "non-engineers" to successfully do their work.
I believe it's more likely for a professional engineer to be liable, but surely in projects of any reasonably large scale there would be several layers of engineering management and oversight such that the engineer working on a part of the puzzle wouldn't be liable for a greater architectural flaw...?
For example, the Boeing 737 MAX had a high level fatal flaw that existed because of a mismatched collection of arguably correct or valid hardware and software systems. The engineers who designed the more forward set engines probably did their jobs correctly, and the software "engineers" who built the pitch up correction software presumably didn't write bugs. However, the combination of the two were primary factors in the fatal accidents.
I have seen situations where the text had to be changed to keep the software legally culpable.
In those cases negligence will lead to prosecution.
I think that's a bit harder to replace than it is to clean a dirty toilet. Presumably the professional engineers can clean their own toilet if absolutely necessary.
Engineering was a thing before software.
The group that wants to protect or maintain ownership of the word "engineer" is dependent upon the people whom it objects to also using that title.
The core concepts which make engineering engineering? Yeah.
>The group that wants to protect or maintain ownership of the word "engineer" is dependent upon the people whom it objects to also using that title.
They are as dependent on software as any other institution, on a day-to-day basis, which have transitioned to computerized automation over the last ~60 years. Software aids efficiency.
The argument that engineers are incapable of designing and constructing sound solutions without software is unsound.
Name one modern feat of engineering which could be done without the aid of software.
Commercial airliner? Nope. Modern skyscraper? Nope. Modern CPU? Nope.
Modern bridge? Maybe; but without structural analysis and stress simulations, it's going to use more material and be rated lower.
I'm done arguiung. It's clear that there's always some meritless retort waiting.
The key is that if it requires some sort of certification, as Canada claims it does, then it should be a modifier/adjective on the title like "certified janitor" or "licensed engineer".
Just claiming an existing single common noun as an exclusive term belonging to your organization is clearly an untenable position. If you have to keep reminding everyone that they're infringing on your trademark all the time by using a common word, you've already lost.
A long time ago in Paris the street sweepers were euphemistically called "surface engineering technicians" (paraphrasing from the French "technicien de surface", but I think this is close enough)...