The code of ethics

Technical skill alone does not make a good engineer. Engineers regularly face situations where doing the right thing costs money, time or goodwill: a schedule that does not allow proper checking, a client who wants a report softened, a supplier offering favours, a manager who says the risk is acceptable when you are not convinced. Most engineering disasters have an ethical failure somewhere in the chain of events, often one that an individual could have stopped.

This chapter covers the code of ethics that binds licensed engineers in Alberta, the ideas behind it, and the common ethical problems of practice: competence, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, honesty and when to blow the whistle. It then studies Canadian and international cases that shaped the profession, and gives a practical method for working through an ethical problem.

Why engineers need a code

Ethics is the study of right and wrong conduct. Professional ethics applies it to the special situation of a profession: engineers hold knowledge the public cannot check, make decisions that affect people who have no say in them, and work for employers and clients whose interests may not match the public's. A code of ethics sets out the duties that follow from that position, and in Canada it is not optional: provincial law makes breaching the code unprofessional conduct, subject to discipline.

Three broad ways of thinking about ethics help when a code does not give a clear answer:

• Duty-based (deontological) ethics asks which obligations apply: honesty, keeping promises, respecting people's rights. Some actions are wrong regardless of the outcome, such as falsifying test results.
• Consequence-based (utilitarian) ethics asks which choice produces the best overall outcome for everyone affected. It underlies cost–benefit and risk analysis, but can overlook the rights of minorities.
• Virtue ethics asks what a person of good character, such as a respected senior engineer, would do. It is useful when rules conflict.

Engineering codes blend all three: they list duties, rank the public good first, and describe the character expected of professionals.

APEGA's Code of Ethics

APEGA's Code of Ethics applies to licensed professionals, permit holders and members-in-training. It states that protecting the public interest is paramount, and sets out five rules of conduct. In summary, professional members shall:

• 1. Hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public, and have regard for the environment, in their practice.
• 2. Undertake only work they are competent to perform by virtue of their training and experience.
• 3. Conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities.
• 4. Comply with applicable statutes, regulations and bylaws in their professional practice.
• 5. Uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of the professions, and the ability of the professions to serve the public interest.

Other regulators' codes differ in wording but share the same core. The order matters: when duties conflict, the public comes before the employer, the client or the engineer's own interest.

APEGA publishes guidelines that explain how the rules apply in practice, including on ethical practice, conflicts of interest and reporting unsafe conditions.

Common ethical issues

Competence

Rule 2 means knowing the limits of your expertise. An engineer qualified in structural design is not automatically competent to design an electrical system, and a recent graduate is not ready to take sole responsibility for a complex pressure vessel. Competence can be built through study, mentoring and supervised work, but you must not take on work beyond it in the meantime.

Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest exists when a personal interest could influence, or could appear to influence, professional judgement. Not every conflict is wrong, but every conflict must be disclosed, and some must be avoided entirely.

Gifts and hospitality raise the same question. A coffee from a supplier is usually harmless; hockey playoff tickets from a vendor whose product you are about to specify are not. Follow your employer's policy, and when in doubt, disclose or decline.

Honesty and objectivity

Engineers must report facts truthfully, state the limits of their data and assumptions, and never let a client's preferences change their technical conclusions. That includes not overstating your qualifications, not taking credit for others' work, and giving opinions only within your competence. With AI tools now common in design and writing, the same rule applies: you remain responsible for checking anything a tool produces, and confidential client information must not be pasted into public tools.

Confidentiality

Clients and employers are entitled to confidentiality about their business. But confidentiality is not absolute: it does not extend to hiding a danger to the public. If you learn of a hazard, the public interest comes first.

Raising concerns and whistleblowing

When an engineer believes work is unsafe or illegal, the usual path is to raise it internally first: with the responsible engineer, then supervisors, then senior management, putting concerns in writing. If that fails and the danger is real, the engineer has a duty to go further, to the regulator, the owner or the authority responsible. APEGA's guidance makes clear that members are expected to report situations that endanger the public. Going outside your organization is a serious step and should be based on facts, not suspicion, but staying silent about a real danger is itself a breach of the code.

Lessons from history

The codes of ethics were written in the aftermath of disasters. Studying them shows how ordinary decisions, made under ordinary pressures, add up to catastrophe.

A popular story holds that the first iron rings were made from the steel of the collapsed Quebec Bridge. That is a myth, but the bridge's lessons are very much in the spirit of the ritual.

Westray and the Criminal Code

On May 9, 1992, a methane and coal dust explosion at the Westray coal mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia, killed 26 miners. The public inquiry found that the mine had operated with widespread disregard for safety, despite warnings, and that regulators had failed to enforce the law. In response, Parliament amended the Criminal Code in 2004 (often called the Westray law). Section 217.1 now places a legal duty on everyone who directs how work is done to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to workers and the public, and organizations can be held criminally liable for failing to do so. Engineers who direct work fall squarely within that duty.

More recent cases

Canada has continued to learn hard lessons. In 2000, E. coli contamination of the water supply in Walkerton, Ontario, killed seven people and sickened thousands, after failures of monitoring, chlorination and honest reporting. In 2012, part of the rooftop parking deck of the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, collapsed after decades of water leakage and corrosion, killing two people; the inquiry criticized inspection reports, including engineering reports, that did not identify the danger. In 2013, a runaway oil train derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people. In 2014, the Mount Polley tailings dam in British Columbia failed, releasing millions of cubic metres of mine waste into lakes and rivers; the expert review found the failure stemmed from the dam's foundation design. Each case led to changes in regulation and practice.