What you're getting at is some kind of industry certification, like the PE, that would only allow those who qualify to call themselves engineers.
But software engineering doesn't have that. Therefore, anyone can call themselves an engineer if they want to, and don't have to pass your little criteria here.
There's no equivalent in software, and the term "software engineer" has little of the rigor envisioned when Margaret Hamilton coined it.
I do wonder how we will manage to actually become a profession.
The license is also seen as largely irrelevant in software as unlike traditional disciplines there are no legislative requirements to have a P.Eng. sign off on certain types of work, nor does most software development fall under the definition of engineering. In contrast, I work in the power industry and the involvement of a P.Eng. is usually a necessity at the design, construction and commissioning phases of utility electrical work.
Also, Canadian jurisdictions do not distinguish between disciplines of engineering in licensing, a Professional Engineer is responsible for self-regulating themselves to the areas of practice in which they are competent. That is, a Professional Engineer holding a degree in mechanical engineering can seal electrical schematics, if she feels that she is competent to do so.
In short, yes you can be a Professional Engineer as a software developer in Canada, but since most software work is not considered to be engineering under the official definition[1], one does not need to be a P.Eng. to do it.
Source: I have an iron ring.
You can still be a developer, of course, and be responsible for critical software projects. You just can't call yourself an engineer.
I actually wonder if (and subsequently when) software will move in that direction, though.
As computers become more and more involved in systems where loss of life is extremely possible (e.g. driverless cars), I wonder if there will be a big push to have PE-equivalents sign off on software architectures, etc.
I especially wonder if there will be a big push to do this in the near future simply for liability reasons ("well Jane Smith is the PE we contracted with and she signed off on the software architecture that didn't account for rain, so go sue HER.").
Not that computer errors haven't already cost lives to-date, but as software starts truly running everything we'll likely see a lot of grumbling and response to software errors that cost lives.
OTOH, it's worked pretty well without licensing to-date, so perhaps not. I do think regardless we'll see a more evident bifurcation into "developers" (most of us) and "software engineers" (people who work on mission-critical software) in the upcoming decades.