Canadian engineering and geoscience regulators commonly use continuing professional development (CPD) programs with audit mechanisms (A), practice reviews or practice assurance reviews to assess compliance with standards and quality systems (C), and complaints/discipline processes to investigate substantiated allegations and impose sanctions when warranted (D). These are well-established regulatory tools aimed at maintaining competence and professionalism after licensure. In contrast, requiring already-licensed registrants to periodically write a standardized technical exam to prove technical competence (B) is generally not a routine Canadian regulatory mechanism. Instead, regulators rely on CPD requirements, practice reviews, quality management expectations, and discipline/investigation processes to address competence concerns. When competence is specifically questioned, remedial actions (such as targeted education, supervised practice, practice restrictions, or competence assessments) may be imposed on an individual basis, but a broad standardized technical examination for “selected registrants” as a regular procedure is not characteristic of Canadian regulation. Therefore, B is the procedure that is not used in Canada as described.