Manitoba Committee Hansard — 23 November 2005 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 7, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-sed7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LVII No. 7 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, November 23, 2005 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P.

MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P.

STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. Vacant Fo rt Whyte P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

277 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, November 23, 2005 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Allan, Hon. Mr. Bjornson, Hon. Ms. Melnick Ms. Brick, Messrs. Faurschou, Goertzen, Mrs. Mitchelson, Messrs. Santos, Schellenberg, Schuler, Swan APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster WITNESSES: Ms. Leane Veness, Private Citizen Mr. Sean Radford, Private Citizen Mr.

Connor Beach-Nelson, Private Citizen Mr. Colin Neufeld, Private Citizen Mr. Tat Liang Cheam, Private Citizen Mr. Doug Corbett, Private Citizen Mr. Jeff Machnicki, Private Citizen Mr. Stan Hutton, Private Citizen Mr. Eric Loewen, Private Citizen Ms. Dorothy Taylor, Private Citizen Mr. Matt Vodrey, Private Citizen Mr. Ian Macdonald, Private Citizen Mr. Terry Cristall, Private Citizen Mr. S. Mark Francis, Private Citizen Ms. Terri Fuglem, Private Citizen Mr. Martin Kuilman, Private Citizen Mr. Nick Read, Private Citizen Ms. Cecilia Moon, Private Citizen Mr.

Stephane Chappellaz, President, Architectural and Building Technologists Association of Manitoba Mr. Wells Peever, Private Citizen Mr. Evan Hunter, Private Citizen Mr. Oliver Beck, Private Citizen Mr. Anthony Wong, Private Citizen Mr. Josef Nejmark, Private Citizen Mr. Jac Comeau, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 7–The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. We met a few times, and things are falling apart now. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

This meeting has been called to consider Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended). We have a number of presenters registered to speak this afternoon, as noted, and those presenters have spoken. Before we proceed with these presentations though, we do have a few other important points of information to consider. First, I would like to note that, if necessary, and that is only if necessary, a meeting has been announced for Thursday, November 24, 2005, at 6 p.m.

Second, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance to the room. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I have not had a chance to speak to the mi nister about this, but I understand we cannot sit tomorrow morning, because that was not announced in the House. However, is it possible that we could sit in the afternoon, because the House would then have sat previous to that? I am under the assumption we will get through the presentations tonight, and then if it got late, perhaps we could do line by line in the afternoon.

Madam Chairperson: Just before you proceed, we do not have the authority to call a meeting. Only the Government House Leader, as called through the

278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 Legislative Assembly, has the authority to do so. You can discuss that at this point here just to make suggestions to the Government House Leader. Hon. Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): According to committee rules, though, we can sit beyond midnight tonight, and the Chair can make that decision on their own according to the rules.

So I would like you to think about that, so that, as we progress throughout the evening and we think we are close, we want the viewing audience and participants to know that there may be a possibility that we can sit beyond midnight tonight to make it happen. Madam Chairperson: As I mentioned, if you have not registered, if you could do so with the Clerk who is at the back of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentations with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies.

If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with the rule, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. For the information of the committee, I would like to offer the following notes.

On your new list of presenters that has just been produced for you for this evening–does everybody have their list there?– presenters 1 through 6 have been called once last evening. Presenter 7 has been called several times yesterday, but, as was agreed by the committee, he will be called one more time today. Presenters 8 through 12 have not been called at all. Presenters 13 through 19 have been called once this morning, and presenters 20 and 21 have not been called at all. Presenter 22 was called once last night. Presenters 23 and 25 were dropped off the list but have registered and are here in attendance.

Presenters 24, 26 and 27 have not been called at all. Just for the information of the committee, this list is the result of us sitting at numerous different times and other people's names being added to the list. Hence, you have some people who have been called once and some people who have not been called at all. At present, there are no written submissions, but for the information of the people who are registered here to present, if you do wish to leave a written submission, that submission would appear in our Hansard and would also be read by the people here.

Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I have to first say the person's name.

This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. * (18:10) Just for the information of the committee and those present to speak, the other rule that is pertinent here is that at midnight, as of tonight, there will be no longer the ability for people to register themselves to speak. So that is effective midnight on the third night of presentations, which is–yes, Mr. Schuler. [interjection] Yes.

For the information of those present that is our rule here in committee, so we would accept people's presentations if they wanted to come and they had not registered yet, up until midnight tonight, if we are still sitting at that time. Anybody who has not registered as of midnight tonight will no longer be allowed to register, as per our rules. I wanted to thank everybody for their patience who have stayed and waited to present. We do really appreciate your willingness to be so patient with us. The committee calls Leane Veness, private citizen. Hi.

Did you have a written presentation you wanted to circulate to committee members? Ms. Leane Veness (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed then, Ms. Veness. Ms. Veness: Hi. My name is Leane Veness, and I stand before you as a private citizen, and as a student of architecture at the Un iversity of Manitoba. Currently, I am working toward completing my graduate degree in architectural design.

To complete my degree, I am to demonstrate a mastery in building design, exhibiting extensive knowledge, starting from the scale of urban contextual integration, to the intimate scale of human comfort and behaviour. In

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 279 short, I am trained to act as a mediator between you in the public and the built environment. It is my understanding that obtaining a master's degree in any profession acknowledges that one has become completely proficient or skilled in a selected area of study.

In my opinion, as it stands, Bill 7, which allows for the profession of engineering to cross over from their area of expertise into the area of building design, diminishing the architect's scope of work, entirely undermines, not only the profession of architecture, but also the master's degree which I have committed the last seven years to obtain.

If this is the landscape in which I am presented with when I complete my degree in a few months, I will be left with no reason to stay and invest my passion for design and my love for architecture in a province which I feel would have completely abandoned any and all investment in my ability as a professional architect. Maybe, I just wanted to add, I think, I was here all afternoon for the comments, and I am getting a little bit, again, disappointed.

I think what is being missed here right now is that I do not feel that we should just look at architecture just in terms of numbers or building envelope or building structure or just interior design, but I think that it is important to understand that architecture and building design is an integration of everything, not only is it just a building system, but also how the building exists in the public realm or the cityscape, or how we as a public interact with these buildings.

So I think what I get out of my education most is my passion to better our environment, so that you people have a better quality of life in the urban context as well as the scale of architecture. So I just want to make that clear. I think that if this bill passes, not only does it undermine my degree, but also I feel like you are removing a mediator between you and the built environment, and I think th at is extremely important. So it is not just building structure and envelope. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Schuler: Thank you so much for coming to committee.

It is always great to see young people presenting. I have sat here for over six years and this is probably one of the few times that we have seen that many young, educated individuals coming forward and trying to make their case. Leane, I am going to ask you a very direct question. The feeling that you get, is it because of what you have read in the legislation? Is it from what you have heard, or is it from what people have told you? Where are you getting this feeling from? Ms. Veness: I think from all three.

I mean, we had the president of the architectural association come by our school, and, kind of, explain what was going on here. Just to hear that, I mean, like, honestly, we work very hard. If I was no t here right now, I would be at my studio working. I have invested a lot of time, and to hear that, you know, all of this knowledge that I have obtained from my degree, I am just going to wait and see if the public–like if an engineer can come in and take that area of work away from me, I do not unde rstand where all that time and energy was spent. Mr.

Schuler: Do you really believe that this legislation would actually allow an engineer to take a lot of what you have trained for away from you? Do you really believe that– Floor Comment: Yes, I think that– Mr. Schuler: –is the case? Floor Comment: I think it is– Mr. Schuler: You have to wait; she has to acknowledge you first, just so that in Hansard they can put your name in. Believe me, you want your name in Hansard, because it is part of history, so you have to hold on for a moment. So, again, I just want to be very clear. I think the committee is genuinely interested.

I mean, is that the feeling you have that this legislation would allow an engineer to come in and design a room like this, you know, these beautiful rooms that we have in this building? Is that the feeling you have? Ms. Veness: As it stands, as the bill is worded right now, yes, I believe that will happen. There are a lot of discrepancies in the language in the bill, and, I think it was mentioned earlier, the building, the gross area as opposed to the building area, I think is a huge one.

I think that an engineer could, and I do not even think it states what type of engineer, so that concerns me a little bit too, that they can, yes, essentially, design anything. I do not think it should be even discussed in terms of building footprint because I do not think a smaller building does not deserve an architect. I think that any public building deserves an architect because that is what we are trained to do. We are mediators between you and this building, so I think any public building should have me involved, and the other architects.

280 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 Ms. Allan: Thank you very much for presenting this evening. Could you just clarify, again, who the individual was that came to speak with you about the legislation? I did not quite catch it because I am hard of hearing. Ms. Veness: Dean Syverson. He is the president of the Manitoba Architectural Association, so he just wanted to clarify to us students. I just want to second an invitation to you, Ms.

Allan, because I think that if you were to walk into the Faculty of Architecture, you would find probably every student eager to tell you why architects should be in part of this environment. We all have passion for it; we love it and it is our life, so I think you would not have a problem finding anyone to talk to you. Ms. Allan: Actually, you can count on me being there and, actually, my colleague the Labour critic (Mr. Schuler) has spoken with me and we are going to go together. So we look forward to meeting with you. Ms. Veness: Good. I look forward to it. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Ms.

Veness: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: The committee calls Sean Radford, private citizen. Mr. Radford, did you have a written submission you wanted to circulate to the committee? Mr. Sean Radford (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay. You can proceed, Mr. Radford. Mr. Radford: Okay, my name is Sean Radford, and I am a student at the University of Manitoba, in the Faculty of Architecture. I am a student in my final years of study, and I am at the point where I have to plan my life and career in the profession of architecture.

As the current draft of Bill 7 stands, as I understand it, it undermines the profession of architecture as well as the extensive training I have committed myself to over the last seven years. My schooling has specifically trained me as a moderator of sorts between the building and its occupants by allowing those in related professions to practise the duties I have been trained to do. It compromises my importance in the process of building and design of the human environment, and, thus, the public's interest.

So, as a young person with much to offer the community both professionally and civically, Bill 7 deters me from maybe putting down roots and remaining in the province I was raised in. If this bill does proceed, it will force me to consider my options elsewhere where my profession is both honoured and valued. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. * (18:20) Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much. Sean, again, it is great to see that you have come out to committee. I was shocked years ago. I was going door to door, and I went to one house, a very well-to-do, beautiful home.

The individual came out and said that nothing you can do will ever have an impact on me. I left fairly sad, because I think, Sean, you understand now how important what goes on in politics, and this bill in particular to what you are going to do in your life. I am very concerned, Sean, when you make statements like, "deters me from putting down roots." You made another statement very similar. Can you define for the committee what, in this legislation, deters you from putting down roots in Manitoba? What is it specifically? Mr. Radford: Okay.

Just sitting around, me and my colleagues, sitting around discussing what the implications of this bill mean to us. From what we understand, the scope of our practice or what we will be practising is removed, and, for lack of better words, maybe neuters our profession. Amongst other things, the grandfathering clause and the wording in the bill opens up discrepancies as to whose job is what, and who is qualified to do the job itself. Mr. Schuler: Well, probably the best news I have heard in weeks is the fact that you and your fellow students are sitting around talking about legislation.

That is just music to our ears. Again, you make a statement, but you do not really get that specific. Is there just a general feeling? What happens if, after this legislation is passed, and none of that comes to pass? Floor Comment: I suppose that is possible, but– Mr. Schuler: I am not done yet. You have to wait, remember? That old waiting thing. I just want to make sure that this is not one of these things that took on a life of their own, and there is a little bit of panic involved in this. I want to make sure that you guys are saying these things based on real specific things out of legislation.

The minister later on will, for us, and she is committed to that, lay

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 281 out for us in Hansard exactly what intention is, and that is going to be very important. That is why I have said it is important; you know, stay tuned. You have to also see what goes in Hansard. But do you find that this is a general feeling, or did you actually go through the legislation and you pecked out certain pieces that were of great concern to you? Mr. Radford: In the presentation from Dean Syverson and the discussions, again, with my colleagues, we are trying to understand the bill.

I am not a law student, so I do not understand all of the technicalities. But, from what I gather from the bill, aside from the language, it may be the compounding of the different acts within the bill that make it hard to determine what exactly it is that the architect's job is.

Additionally, in doing so and putting the onus on the public to decide who is qualified to design their building, which has an impact on the use of the building and the community it is put in, it is leaving this decision to them, which they may see that economically it may be cheaper just to get an engineer, where it may be in their interest and the public's interest to have an architect to design that building for the people that are going to use it.

So, to say we are just getting nervous and stuff because of the proceedings and what is going on here, I think we are really trying to understand that and see how we can make a difference and contribute. I do not know if I answered your question. Mr. Schuler: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. For the information of the committee, presenter No. 4, Judy Pestrak, has requested that her name be withdrawn from the list. For the information of the committee, we have an additional person added.

Evan Hunter will be No. 28 on your list, Evan Hunter– Floor Comment: Yes. Madam Chairperson: No, that is okay. We are just adding your name to the list. The committee calls Jae Sung Chon, private citizen. Once more, the committee calls Jae Sung Chon, private citizen. Mr. Chon's name will be removed from the list. The committee calls Tina Chakraborty, private citizen. Tina Chakraborty, private citizen. Ms. Chakraborty's name will be removed from the list. The committee calls Connor Beach-Nelson, private citizen. Mr. Beach-Nelson, did you have some information you wanted to circulate to the committee? Mr.

Connor Beach-Nelson (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Beach-Nelson: My name is Connor Beach- Nelson. I am a graduate of the Environmental Design program from the University of Manitoba. I graduated in 2004, and I am currently working and then plan to proceed on to a Master's of Architecture degree. I am sort of in the middle of my architectural education. While I share the concerns of fellow colleagues and students as expressed earlier this evening and earlier today and the past two days, I am going to talk about something a little different.

I do not believe that Bill 7 is in the best public interest in general. I think it is a reactive bill, conceived upon the faulty foundations of ignorance. It is a hurried attempt to appease the popular and selfish views of those who support non-professionals practising architecture under the guise of protecting Manitoba's economy. If the government is so easily swayed by the inflated economic perspective of industry, how can we be sure that the government is making decisions in the best interests of all Manitobans?

It was suggested previously that the purchaser of the professional service is key to the issue that is before us today and that they should be allowed to choose between an architect or an engineer. For the most part, a built environment is used by and affects many more people than simply the purchaser. Do all of these people get to have their say in this decision? The Architects Act is designed not simply to guide professionals, but to protect society at large.

Granting the right to create architecture to unqualified individuals is analogous to stripping away the rights of all Manitobans to use and enjoy quality spaces. Thank you . Madam Chairperson: Are there questions? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. The committee calls Colin Neufeld, private citizen. Mr. Neufeld, you can proceed. Mr. Colin Neufeld (P rivate Citizen): I find it very interesting. I was actually he re to speak, and I would like to thank my colleague who stood up and asked

282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 that I still be allowed to speak tonight, the other Colin, exactly. Well, I am nervous, and I thank you for your time. I am before you today to speak as a private citizen regarding this proposed legislation. I thank you in advance for allowing me to participate in order to be heard on record, Hansard, and to facilitate the democratic process. My name is Colin Neufeld and I have lived in Manitoba my entire life.

I appeal to the committee from the perspective of a recently graduated architectural student, current architectural intern and future, hopefully, regist ered architect.

I have completed my educational requirement, and I am currently a part of the Internship in Architecture Program and about to undergo the nine architectural registration exams to demonstrate and certify my abilities and professional training in the design and construction of buildings. * (18:30) First, I would like to state my support for the position of the Manitoba Association of Architects on this matter, as well as the specific points the association's representatives have made. Additionally, I would also endorse the recom- mendations contained in the Witty Report, made by Dr.

David Witty, as the government-appointed mediator in this dispute. Of note, as mentioned in their annual report, the provisions made to resolve this dispute were rejected by the engineering association, because that report failed to allow for the possible exclusion of architects from projects. Next, I would just like to present a brief personal history just so that you know who I am and where I am coming from. As mentioned, I have lived in Manitoba my entire life, as has my wife.

We both went to the University of Manitoba to become professionals in our respective fields; architecture and occupational therapy, one being an old profession and one being a very young profession, for a total of 12 years between us. After completing my undergraduate degree in architecture, my wife and I contemplated moving to Montréal to compete my master's degree. In the end, we decided to stay in Manitoba to complete my degree based on the reputation of the school and my intention to practice here upon completion.

Also, on a further note, my father was a draftsman who worked for various architectural firms in the province eventually becoming a partner in one of the leading firms in the city. He also ran a successful drafting company for 10 years prior to his passing that I worked for since about Grade 6, I think. If it were possible to deem yourself competent, as we have heard is possible, to practice architecture, he certainly would have qualified. However, all his experience taught him that he was not an architect nor ever would be a qualified architect.

He instructed me that if I wished to practice architecture, to complete the requirements and training to do so. While this bill would have benefited the potential for his drafting practice extremely, he would have vehemently opposed this legislation given its potential damage to the architectural profession he dedicated his life to working in. To summarize, I am a young, aspiring professional and along with my wife and two children, a lifelong Manitoban. This bill seriously jeopardizes both those aspects.

First, it guts the profession I am trying to become a member of, and second, I will most likely have to relocate in order to work in an environment that respects and encourages my education and commitment to better my community through the practice of architecture. I will elaborate briefly now on what causes this reaction. I thank you for the fact that it is important to this committee that so many of us have said we might have to leave. There are three areas I would like to comment on, and in some of them, I will be reiterating many of my colleagues.

The first would be, and it is something personal that I take exception to, would be the title of this bill. The phrase, scope of practice dispute, while this may seem a minor point, the title sets the stage for everything that follows in the bill. I believe it inaccurately sets the stage, and there is not a dispute just because someone says there is one. There currently are provincial acts in place that clearly outline the scope of practice for two professions which have recently been upheld by the courts.

There is no real dispute, just limited members of one profession illegally claiming to be entitled to practice the other profession . That, to me, is not a dispute. Secondly, I would like to reiterate what many of my colleagues have already said regarding who defines the architect's scope of practice. Removing this crucial point from The Architects Act and placing it under the control of a private-interest group is alarming to me as an architectural intern but also as a future professional citizen of Manitoba. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, as we have

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 283 heard, to allow the marketplace to govern professional practice. In particular, the Building Standards Board has proven complete disregard for the value or need for architects and offer me no reason that that attitude would change. While others have discussed the particulars of the scope of work, I would ask this committee to ensure that, regardless of the final approved scope of practice that arises from your discussion, that this scope would remain as part of The Architects Act.

This is crucial to monitor and not allow the further degradation of the built environment to the profit of those stakeholders on the Building Standards Board. It simply must remain part of The Architects Act. I believe, to answer Mr. Schuler's question, as well as some of the others previously, this, to me, is at the core of why you would see young architects leave this province. It not only devalues our profession now but possibly in the future and that, to me, is alarming. When considering my third point about grandfathering engineers, I was trying to find a non- offensive approach to the discussion.

However, I find the inclusion of it offensive and, therefore, the discussion, I apologize, might follow suit. I believe item 15, grandfathering professional engineers, to be a disgraceful use of legislative authority to circum- vent a court decision and to validate a profession's illegal activities. I find it repugnant that illegal acts would not only go unpunished, but also be rewarded and allowed to continue under this legislation. It is undeniable that a significant problem exists made on the court ruling of September 16.

A problem exists for all engineers, authorities having jurisdiction and interior designers who engaged in activities not conforming to Manitoba legislation. Of note, they are saying that they now require an architect, however, that is not the case, they always did. Whether or not that was correct, but they did always require an architect. Nothing changed on September 16 and the fact that my profession changes on September 16, as a result of that, I find unacceptable.

How is it reasonable to allow illegal acts to adversely affect the architectural profession while at the same time expanding the scope of practice for the offending parties? I believe without doubt that, if the MAA was shown to have a number of members that had acted unprofessionally, they would be reprimanded appropriately and most likely removed from the association. They would not be heralded and backed by the association. APEGM's refusal to address their non- conforming members is the reason we are here today and yet, it is the practice of architecture that is being redefined.

I would ask the members of this committee to consider the removal of the grandfathering clause and all related clauses about the retroactive approval of those buildings that were completed and occupied incorrectly. I recognize a serious problem exists and the government's need to address it, however, I do not feel this is the place. I believe it should be dealt with on a one-time basis, and it is unfortunate that this unregulated and illegal form of architecture was allowed. This problem should not be compounded by allowing it in the future. I thank you for you r consideration of these points.

In conclusion, I would just like a few more comments. Over the last few days and hours and hours of presentations we have all heard, we have heard many aspects about architecture, engineering and interior design. Over these presentations, we have heard lip service paid to the importance of all the professions in their respective fields. I say lip service as we have heard repeatedly from the engineers and interior designers that there are buildings which have no need for an architect and the expertise that they can offer to a building project.

They have qualified themselves to determine when an architect is or is not needed even though they themselves are not architects. This is not a position that you have heard from the architects. We, in no way, wish to exclude engineers but rather are seeking to work together. To quote from the engineer's annual report which an excerpt is attached to this presentation, in the end, council agreed APEGM's council with two abstentions and no dissenting votes not to accept Dr.

Witty's recommendations in principle because in doing so, we would be accepting in principle the notion that the Manitoba Building Code could be changed to read architect and engineer instead of architect or engineer. Council was not willing to accept this notion and we have heard the importance of the word and previously. I find this an unreasonable position and this could be remedied by the correct changes to Bill 7. If one thing is certain from the last few days it is that both professions are completely necessary. Both have stated this repeatedly, and yet they, the

284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 engineers, cannot accept the very notion that would ensure this. It is stated in the Witty Report that the position of APEGM is that the engineers believe the starting point for this discussion is that they should be able to design all buildings. I find this a ridiculous position that reveals the lip service they have paid us over the last few days. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Neufeld, I will have to stop you there. Mr. Neufeld: Can I say my last sentence? Madam Chairperson: Sure. Mr. Neufeld: Great.

The client is only required to protect their interest not the public's. Putting the professional responsibilities of architects and engineers in the hands of private interests is irresponsible, unprofessional to the core, and simply would not be tolerated in other professions. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Schuler: Colin, not to get too personal, but it is great that you and your wife have settled here, and your two children.

It is probably just me alone at this committee who cannot help but think they are making dads younger and younger, but, anyway– [interjection] Honestly, I remember dads being that young in my day, but anyway. Floor Comment: I look young. Mr. Schuler: Colin, on page two–and I think the committee is trying to grapple with some of the statements, and the three of us at this committee, the Chair, the minister and I, and some of the minister's staff have sat through all of this and, I think, we are trying to come to an understanding. I am going to read a few words back to you off of page two, second paragraph.

"This bill seriously jeopardizes both those aspects. First it guts the profession," and I will just pause. * (18:40) Do not speak yet, because she has not said your name. Then you do not get into Hansard. "It guts the profession"; I mean, those are really strong words. I am going to ask you in a moment just to comment on that. "I am trying to become a member of, and second, I will most likely have to relocate in order to work in an environment that respects and encourages my education and commitment to better my community," et cetera.

"Guts the profession" and "have to relocate," I ask this in all sincerity, I do not mean to be gratuitous about this, because obviously you have written it, do you really mean that? That this so guts your profession that, do you really mean it, that you would uproot your family and leave the province, and what is the linchpin for that? I, too, have three young children and I look at–you will get there, have the third one, by the way, then you start looking at–to move your family. I know others on this committee would concur with that; that is a very strong statement.

I think the committee would like to hear your comments on that. Those are very strong words. If you would just take a moment and if you would reflect on that. Mr. Neufeld: I could offer two points to that. The first would be to talk to the "guts the profession." I believe it begins to, and I believe it opens the door to continue to do so. That is where I stand. By removing the scope of practice from our act, it is put into the hands of developers whom we have heard from, industry stakeholders who have shown and, we work with them every day. It is difficult with some of them.

I think it puts it in the hands of people who are not educated to respect my profession and what I do. They also have their own interests and they are not charged to protect anybody's interest except their own. So that, to me, damages my profession and it opens the door to further damage it. To answer the second thing about uprooting my family, my wife has always vehemently opposed moving anywhere.

When we were discussing this the other night, she, with no prompting from me, said, "You know what, as a person who is a professional in this province, I find this disrespectful to a profession and to my husband who has tried to become a professional here." She suggested, she said, "Let's go." She said, "It's over, this disrespects your profession and we should not practise here." She said that. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. The committee calls Tat Liang Cheam, private citizen. You can proceed. Mr.

Tat Liang Cheam (Private Citizen): Good evening, Minister Allan and honourable committee members. You have heard a lot over the past days about what an architect and what an engineer does. I have heard a lot about what an architect and what an engineer does. But what we have on the table is Bill 7. That is what is on the table.

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 285 When I heard the City of Winnipeg's position, I was shocked and I was dismayed with what I heard. With all due respect to Councillor DeSmedt, how can he say Bill 7 is a fair trade-off that balances both professions? Has he read Bill 7, and has he heard the facts presented by my fellow architects? Bill 7 has serious flaws in it, rangin g from: No. 1, incorrect

interpretation of gross area; No. 2, alterations not requiring architects; No. 3, arenas not requiring architects; No. 4, industrial buildings with high human occupancy not requiring architects; No. 5, engineers who do not have architectural education and certification practising architecture. The most important, which we have gone over a few times, as far as my career is concerned, is removing our scope of practice from our act and putting it solely in the Building Code, where a group of people called a Building Standards Board that includes only one architect can govern what work an architect does.

That is absolutely irrational and ludicrous. I do thank you for your understanding of that. I prepared this speech yesterday and I have heard your comments. I appreciate your understanding of this issue. This should be of gravest concern not only to all other professions, but also to engineers and interior designers. What would the engineers or interior designers think about having a group of industry stakeholders determining the scope of work of their profession? This is what subsections 15(1.1) and 25(1) state. Have our scope of work in our act, plus I want to keep calling their office.

I do not want to believe it. He is a great guy and that is important. Architects design buildings for people. Engineers design building components in buildings. Architects orchestrate building components into a holistic whole for people. Our current Architects Act does not exclude engineers. It simply states an architect is required for certain projects. Architects practise architecture including engineers. I look around and all of my fellow architects never design buildings without engineers. We include engineers and interior designers. We collaborate with engineers on all projects.

Bill 7 would exclude architects from being required on certain buildings. I do not have anything against engineers and my best friends are engineers. I truly respect their profession because of what they are trained to do. It is about their training. That is what it comes down to, education, training, certi fication and practice. My value of their skills does not make Bill 7 right. Bill 7 is wrong. Dead simple, it is wrong, for the reasons that I have stated. Further, the design of spaces for people with disabilities is part of an architect's education, training, testing and certification.

Engineers are not educated, trained, tested or certified to design buildings for people with disabilities. Bill 7 would allow engineers to design spaces for people with disabilities which is an important training of an architect. You have heard the well-presented rational arguments my fellow architects have presented. I plead with you, with each and every one of you, who is here today. You have read Bill 7. You have heard the importance of Bill 7. Please consider what Bill 7 says and consider what my colleagues have presented when you make that decision.

Let reason, logic and the law prevail and delay the third reading of Bill 7 until all parties come to a rational agreement. Even though we are fewer than our fellow engineers, we are not less than our fellow engineers. Count on us being part of the wonderful province of Manitoba and what it has to offer the people of Manitoba. You can count on me as a registered architect of the province of Manitoba. That is my presentation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Schuler: I will try to keep myself brief. Tat- Liang, I think we can all agree that Colin should stay in Manitoba. We are all in agreement there.

You say in page 2, and I am just going to quote, "removing our scope of practice from our act and putting it solely in the Building Code where a group of people called the Building Standard s Board that includes one architect can govern what work an architect does. This is absolutely irrational." You go on from there. So from what I understand, from your perspective, it is removing the scope out of The Architects Act that is the greatest offence. Just hold on until you get named. That way you get into Hansard. That, actually, is the crux of it.

I understand there are other issues, but for you that is a very big issue. That is very important to you. * (18:50) Mr. Cheam: Yes, that is the hugest issue in this entire bill. This is a very important issue. You cannot

286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 count a bunch of fruits and say you have 10 fruits and that is all the fruit you have. All the other parts are important, some of them critically important for the people who have physical disabilities. I would say it is a human rights issue that is vastly important. However, that one part about removing our scope of practice can change all of the other arguments that I presented. It can change any part of any profession, if it is given precedence, but it changes our profes- sion completely.

It can change any other part of the bill completely and that for sure is the hugest concern I have. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you for your presentation. The committee calls Doug Corbett, private citizen. You can proceed Mr. Corbett, but if you do not mind, could you just bring the mike up a little bit. Thank you. Mr. Doug Corbett (Private Citizen): I appreciate the patience of your committee to resolve this important issue and I thank you. My name is Doug Corbett and I am a registered member of the Manitoba Association of Architects and principal of Corbett Cibinal Architects.

I support the position of my colleagues and call upon the minister and this committee to delay Bill 7 from proceeding to the third reading. I would like to speak on two topics; one, a case study and one, what I believe is a shortcoming of Bill 7 and to present a possible solution for your consideration. The case study involves a prominent highrise building in downtown Winnipeg. We were engaged by an interior design consultant to review the Building Code conformance for her proposed design.

This building had been designed in 1970 as an open office floor plate with a central core elevator and two exits, the traditional design for a highrise office building. Over the years, it had been renovated by various consultants and, as a result, the concept of having access to those two exits was lost in the fact that it was broken into a much smaller grouping of offices which resulted in dead-end corridors and limited access to two exits. This, and we all remember The Towering Inferno, but this potentially could have been a towering inferno situation as this highrise building was not sprinklered.

Ironically, this building is your building and it is occupied by Justice. We mentioned that and we were then retained to correct the design when we had identified the problems with the exiting. We were retained to renovate nine floors of this building. Subsequently, we put together what we would call the integrated design process which Rodney McDonald from the Canada Green Building Council spoke to this morning. We hired the original interior designer. We hired mechanical, electrical and structural engineers.

We put together a contractor on the team and the users to all together make this building a modern building with no life safety concerns. I bring that point to you and I had to stress that point that, in my opinion, this issue should not be perceived as a turf war. We endorse the integrated design process and believe that construction is a complicated matter. It involves the expertise of many individuals and no one person can do it all. The second topic I would like to address, that I think Bill 7 has a shortfall, is the alteration to heritage buildings.

Our firm specializes in adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. The portfolio includes Red River Princess Street campus, University of Winnipeg's Wesley Hall, Brandon University's original building Clark Hall which were significant renovations. Heritage buildings require a sensitivity to creative re-use solutions, material use, detailing and a knowledge of history, all aspects studied in the formal education by architects and not engineers, as I studied engineering before I became an architect.

Adaptive re-use of heritage buildings in the upcoming years will be a significant majority of projects as much of our existing building stock does not meet building codes. It requires building-system upgrades, and are culturally relevant to not lose to demolition. One building you are in right now is being slated for upgrades for sprinklers and air- conditioning. You can image that, with a beautiful building like this, if the sensitivity is not here, it could have quite a damaging effect if you are trying to run sprinkler pipes and duct work. By heritage buildings, I do not just mean the 1900 buildings.

There is also a beautiful stock of sixties modernist buildings in Winnipeg that has to be taken into consideration as well. In closing, this is a possible solution that I would have your committee consider. It goes back 12 years ago. I was on the practice committee of the Manitoba Association of Architects when this issue was beginning to raise its head. At the time, a building

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 287 official in Brandon had come to me and said, "You know, I get many people from Brandon and some of my friends coming in with renovations or building plans on a piece of paper not designed by architects, engineers or anything, and I tell them that they have to have professionals involved." He said, "They get quite upset; they blame it on me. They say it is my fault." He said, "I would really like to have a document in the Building Code that I could put on the table.

So, see, it is not me making this law; it is actual law." I put in front of you the Ontario Building Code. It has a matrix. We are also practising in Ontario. At the time I thought that it was a very good matrix. It lays out when an archit ect and an engineer are required on various types of buildings, assembly occupancies. It is the type of document this building official was looking for that he could simply give back to a lay citizen and say, "I am sorry. It just says right here. It is not me.

It is the law." I would like to just point out that one clause on that matrix, 2.3.1.1(1), says: "An architect shall provide services within th e practice of architecture and a professional engineer shall provide the services within the practice of professional engineering." I believe that says it all, for what we are after is just to have an integrated design process with all individuals involved, all working together on the benefit of the client and the public. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any questions for the presenter? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much.

The committee calls Jeff Machnicki, private citizen. You can proceed, Mr. Machnicki. Mr. Jeff Machnicki (Private Citizen): Thanks for taking this time to hear everyone's speeches. My name is Jeff Machnicki, and I am a registered intern-in-architecture member of the Manitoba Association of Architects. I have endured and successfully completed a qualifying year of university, three years for my Bachelor of Environmental Design degree and three years for my Master of Architecture degree.

I have been accepted into a program of internship through the Manitoba Association of Architects, and am currently logging my required 5600 hours of experience under the direct supervision of a registered member of the Manitoba Association of Architects and a mentor, who also must be a registered member of the association. I am preparing for, and will write, nine exams totally some 27 hours of testing time. Then, and only then, will I will be legally entitled to call myself an architect and practise in the profession of architecture.

A long and rigorous process, but would you expect or require less fro m someone responsible for human safety within the built environment? I once heard a gentleman make the following statement, "I know just enough to be dangerous." I stand here today "just enough." Architects are the only professionals educated, trained and tested in the design of buildings. * (19:00) I am a Manitoban through and through. I was born here. I received my education here. I will raise my family here, and, yes, I will practice architecture here. Please do not jeopardize my chances by passing Bill 7 as it stands.

It is riddled with flaws, which have been pointed out by my colleagues before me, and, like you have heard many, many times, I fully support the position of Don Oliver, and call upon the minister and this committee to delay Bill 7 from proceeding to third reading. Thanks for your time. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for th e presenter? Seeing no questions, I thank you very much. The committee calls Stan Hutton, private citizen. You can proceed, Mr. Hutton. Mr. Stan Hutton (Private Citizen): Before I proceed, if I may just correct something.

Before this session proceeded, you indicated who had been here. I was here. I was registered to speak. I was at the City trying to follow up with former colleagues on what the permit status was and missed the first. I did leave last night at about 10:30 anticipating it would be mid-morning today before my turn came up and missed a second time, But they were good enough to accept my name. Madam Chairperson: So you were re-registered, is that what you are saying? Mr. Hutton: Correct. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Hutton: Just for the record. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 Mr. Hutton: My name is Stan Hutton. I am here as a private citizen. Having heard the presentation by Councillor DeSmedt on Monday evening, and multiple presentations speculating on the degree of delay in the City of Winnipeg permit system, I feel that it is important that this committee have a better understanding on what is happening in the trenches. Is there a backlog and, if there is, is the provincial economy grinding to a halt?

Accordingly, I spent much of this Tuesday morning, yesterday, in formal discussions with a senior member of the planning department. To provide some background, I worked in the department for 14 years as an architect in the role of senior urban designer. This was a new position created to add credibility to the downtown zoning by-law introduced in the city in 1988. The City wanted an architect to provide the leadership in reviewing the drawings of other architects, planners, landscape architects, engineers, sign companies and the like.

The new by-law built on efforts of the City to raise the bar with respect to the design of new buildings, major additions, alterations, signage, parking lots, anything affecting the urban design in the downtown. Continuing the efforts of Historic Buildings By-law and the design review under the Historic Winnipeg Advisory Committee, I can tell you that the new downtown zoning by-law, 4800 of 88, was also a response by both the City administration and council to ensure that more effort went into the design of buildings and streetscapes by everyone that was holding a pencil.

Many of the new buildings just did not cut it. Winnipeg's image needed a boost. From the year I arrived in Winnipeg from Alberta in 1979, I was so impressed to think that the big dig at Portage and Main was the new subway system of this great city, I quickly learned that Winnipeggers felt they were falling behind other western provinces. There have been various attempts of renaissance since.

The leadership of Lloyd Axworthy brought the city tri-level opportunities under the Core Area Initiative, bricks and mortar projects like Portage Place, linking the Bay and Eaton's were developed to save the downtown commercially and to stimulate it residentially. The Forks followed and became a reason to celebrate the uniqueness of our city and province and a key destination in the downtown. The neigh- bourhood main streets program, including the likes of Ellice, Sargent, St. Mary's, Provencher, Selkirk, Corydon, Osborne, Westin, Academy, Broadway evolved into the development of business improve- ment zones.

Then, of course, there is the new bridge and the Manitoba Hydro building. I am certain that all MLAs will be familiar with the impact of such initiatives had on their communities. What is the point, you ask? All of these initiatives, enabled and supported by government, have centred on a clear vision of excellence with the employ of the lead design professionals in urban planning, landscape architecture and architecture to establish the framework for the design.

My point is that the public recognizes that major improvements have been made in the past 25 years, because of the political leadership at all levels by all parties, and because of a new attitude. The new attitude is, "We can do it, and we will." I do not buy the argument that any bill with flaws must be rushed through because the economy will grind to a halt, but rather that Manitoba has gained and is continuing to gain momentum economically and that the standards for development are higher than they have ever been before.

One need look no further than the current mayor of the city of Winnipeg who built the ballpark on the failed arena site as the primary legacy project coming out of the 1999 Pan Am Games. If you ask Mayor Katz if it was clear sailing at City Hall, I expect that you would get an earful. You may recall the newspaper reports with Sam playing into the hands of public opinion, "City Hall is delaying my project for no valid reason." He was very successful, I might add, in creating panic in the offices of Mayor Thompson and the Executive Policy Committee. Thankfully, the project pr oceeded.

Complicated land agreements with CN, serv icing agreements, issues relating to riverbank stability, assessment of any impact to the cultural horizon, were all undertaken by various professions while the architects and engineers in various disciplines carried on with the design and construction documents to proceed with the project in time for the games. The City did find ways to allow the project to proceed.

Consecutive permits were issued for site development, followed by foundation only, followed by the main building permit and, finally, the pe rmits for service parking lots, signage, food services and the like. The City does have more latitude than you might think to allow certain projects to proceed incrementally while applicants adjust to the what the

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 289 City is trying to accommodate, the Manitoba Building Code, since September 16. The City also has considerable discretion on the enforcement side. For those buildings that were under construction as of September 16, and for which no final occupancy permit had been granted, the city does have the option to allow the ongoing construction to proceed, an interim occupancy to be granted with conditions and time frame for satisfying those conditions, and it frequently does extend the interim occupancies to allow for total completion of all outstanding issues.

The Crocus building is but one example of a building that has outstanding issues relating to the city's design approval after some four years. If it is deemed appropriate by committee to recommend that Bill 7 does not proceed, you should know that interim options are available for authorities having jurisdiction to reduce any backlog. As I stated earlier in my presentation, I did spend much of Tuesday morning in the planning department to get the scoop on any backlog. My intent was to find out what is really happening within the department and to be in a position to fairly represent my findings to this committee.

I was given the same answer as I was when I asked the question some three weeks ago at the Building Officials Association trade show a nd conference at the Canad Inn. September 16, there were over 200 permits in the system. There were some 58 projects under construction, of which some 35 were impacted. Of those 35, the largest portion was industrial. The 23 that were not of industrial occupancy did have the involvement of an architect for the most part. Twelve did not.

Perhaps it is these 12 that Bill 7 is looking to protect under the grandfathering provisions, since protecting them retroactively would potentially protect both the City and the Province. If that is the case, then I might concede that it could be effective risk management strategy, but what of the consequences in giving credibility to poor acts of judgment that were untenable in the first place? When I asked my former colleague at the City what the current impact was, I could not get a definitive response.

This was not because the City representative was not forthcoming with information, but rather because that information is not known. The data fields within the AMANDA computerized permit system are not set up to specify which profession, architect or en gineer, is involved in a project, for example.

On September 16, the department set to work over a period of several days taking inventory to report on the impact the court ruling might be expected to have. * (19:10) Since that time, the focus of the City has been to identify those projects requiring architects, to notify applicants accordingly and to process all other applications which are complete as efficiently as possible. I believe that, if this were a court proceeding and if the department itself were testifying, you would get the same answer. They do not know. They can guess.

They can redirect the efforts of a significant portion of the staff to take inventory or they can speak in general terms about general delays. The City gives me the impression that the outcome of the September 16 ruling is being taken in stride. The requirement for architects to be involved has been clarified. The permit staff is busy doing their jobs. I get the sense, however, that they are also being more cautious, on the one hand, and more diligent, on the other, to ensure all permits issued have the seals of all the professionals, be they architects or engineers, on the drawings.

If Bill 7 did not proceed, I believe the issuance of City permits will never be the same as it was pre-September 16. If, on the other hand, Bill 7 proceeds I come away with the understanding that the City will ensure that an architect is involved in projects over a specified size. The City will be questioning the competence of the professionals where documenta- tion submitted for permits do not indicate a clear understanding of the Building Code. Under these circumstances, the applicant will be advised to seek the assistance of an architect or an engineer with a specified area of expertise. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Hutton, if I could ask you for your last sentence. Mr. Hutton: Okay. I brought with me today eight City of Winnipeg brochures intended to help the public through the permit process. I believe the pre- September 16

interpretation of the City of any requirement for an architect or engineer has been that an engineer is always required and maybe an architect. More specifically, the requirement has typically been for a structural engineer, maybe an architect and maybe a P.Eng. for mechanical or electrical. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much.

290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 Mr. Hutton: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Are there any questions for the presenter? Mr. Conrad Santos (Wellington): Yes, a quick question. What would be the consequences if– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Santos, I am sorry, we cannot hear your question. If you bring your mike a little closer. Mr. Santos: What, in your opinion, would be the consequence if this word "or" is changed to "and"? Mr.

Hutton: I believe, sir, that the consequence would be that then the authorities of the jurisdiction would interpret that correctly that an architect should be involved under the appropriate portions as governed by their act and by the code and an engineer would as well. Typically, the package that I submitted will show you that a structural engineer is the most common engineer referred to in the documentation, so usually the City has in the past number of years interpreted that to be always a structural engineer and then, perhaps, an architect and then, perhaps, engineers in the other disciplines. Mr.

Santos: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hutton. Seeing no other questions, we thank you for your presentation. Mr. Hutton: Could I just ask that this be read in its entirety? Mr. Schuler: If it be the will of the committee, we would like to grant leave that the rest of it be read into Hansard. Madam Chairperson: Agreed? [Agreed] The committee, then, would deem that your presentation has been read. Mr. Hutton: The City would not ask for any engineer to do architectural drawings.

It is not clear to me how the City would deal with the practice of architecture by engineers under the proposed grandfathering clauses on an interim basis until any recognition certificate is issued. I can tell you from 14 years of experience in the City of Winnipeg's Planning Department that incomplete documentation causes more delay in the issuance of permits than anything else.

I believe that it is also fair to say that there is an ever-increasing trend towards the design build model where the client, often a developer, relies more on the trades themselves to design the building systems and looks for an engineer to stamp the drawings even though he/she has no or little involvement in the decisions leading to the design. Committee has been given ample examples over the two days where loopholes in legislation can leave the door open to this type of practice. This is not in the best interests of the public.

Councillor DeSmedt spoke on behalf of the City from a statement that I expect was prepared by the Planning Department and reviewed by Legal Services. I get the sense that the Planning Department would be relieved if Bill 7 proceeded because their terms of reference would be clear. I get the sense that the Law Department would be relieved with the grandfather clause s since the City does not want to be subject to further legal action.

I believe that the Planning Department feels that Bill 7, if approved, will give the architects much of what they have asked for, certainly more than they effectively had pre-September 16, but less than they have had since September 16. I do expect that the City will update these brochures in accordance with the requirements of any changes to the code, legislation and professional acts. Today, however, we still have one foot in yesterday. These documents are as follows. Assembly Occupant Loads, dated December 2002, architect or engineer.

Life Safety Tests In Buildings, dated February 200, not definite on involvement of professional. Multi-storey Multi-Tenant Buildings, dated Nov 2003, interior alteration/occupancy applications comprise 70 percent of the applications that have a waiting time in the Plan Examination Branch, e.g. structural engineer, electrical and mechanical; no mention of an architect. Residential Conversion, dated Jan 2004, guidelines for the conversion of a residential building, house, for a commercial or industrial use. Applicants are advised to retain services of an architect, engineer or other qualified person.

New Home Engineered Plans Approval Program, dated July 2004, a pilot project for faster processing of building permit applications for new home construction. Structural plans and details shall

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 291 bear the seal and signature of a professional engineer registered in the province of Manitoba. The permit timeframe is five working days. The Professional Engineer and Residential Construction, dated Aug 1999, all about a structural engineer sealing structural drawings. What is the Building Permit Process for other than housing, dated Oct 2003. Architectural/Fire Protection drawings, sealed, signed and dated by an Architect or P. Eng.,

Part 3 only. Structural Drawings, sealed, signed and dated by P. Eng., not specific as to discipline. Mechanical Drawings, sealed, signed and dated by P. Eng., not specific as to discipline Electrical Drawings, sealed, signed and dated by P. Eng., not specific as to discipline. What is a Building Code Classification and Design

Summary, dated May 2004, no mention that any professional need be involved. I urge this committee to review Bill 7, go over the application of current practice of the City and other authorities having jurisdiction, and then move forward with the knowledge that you will have created better legislation. Madam Chairperson: The committee calls Patrick Harrop, private citizen. The committee calls Patrick Harrop, private citizen. For the information of the committee, Mr. Harrop's name will now be put on the bottom of the list because he has not been called more than once.

So please put his name on the bottom of your list. The committee calls Eric Loewen, private citizen. You can proceed, Mr. Loewen. Mr. Eric Loewen (Private Citizen): Minister Allan, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Eric Loewen, and I am a professional engineer registered in the province of Manitoba. As a brief introduction, I was born and raised in Manitoba, and I obtained my civil engineering degree at the U of M in 1992. I have a strong passion for engineering and a great love of architecture.

In first year engineering I actu ally applied for a transfer to the Faculty of Architecture, partly because I thought it would be more enjoyable to create models at 3 a.m. in the old design studio like some of my friends were than to do calculus and applied math assignments at 3 a.m. In the end, I decided to stay in engineering, and I became a structural engineer specializing in both buildings and bridges. I have lived and worked across Canada, from the Maritimes to Alberta.

I was the lead structural engineer on the Inuvik Hospital in the Northwest Territories, and I have worked in Guatemala on a missionary seminary and school. I have also worked on industrial buildings such as water treatment plants and maintenance buildings; office buildings, both low- rise and high-rise; residential buildings and condominiums; community centres and sports complexes. At the beginning of these sessions on Monday evening, I was not entirely sure how I would vote if I was on the legislative committee.

However, after the last three days of presentati ons it is very clear to me that Bill 7 should be supported. Today I am going to respond to some of the comments made by other presenters. I will demonstrate that engineers can indeed address human factors in planning and design, and I will address some of the arguments against Bill 7. Several previous presen ters portrayed architects as having an education completely unmatched by engineers.

We have heard that architects have nine years of education and training before becoming an architect, at which time they have become both building specialists and building generalists. So how does this compare to an engineer's education? In the civil en gineering co-op program, a civil engineer takes five years of school, integrated with two years of practical work assignments. After graduation, it takes four years of work minimum, including mentoring by a professional engineer and formal reporting every six months to APEGM. So after nine years, we can also receive our professional designation. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson in the Chair We were told Monday that there are no building design courses in engineering. The architects may say that designing a structure is not building design. I will address that in a moment. In civil engineering, I took courses in steel, concrete, pre-stressed concrete, timber and masonry design. I took geotechnical design and analysis, and soil structure interaction. This represents seven courses, all directly part of building design. In second year engineering we were already using the National Building Code to apply the loads from human occupancy to structures.

Yes, we take many courses in building design.

292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 So what is a building and building design? You can take the electrical and mechanical systems out of a building, and the building is still both a structure and a building, like cathedrals from past centuries. You could take the statues and the architecture away from the coliseum in Greece, but it is still a structure and a building. But if you take the structure away from the cathedrals and th e coliseum, they are not buildings and there can be no architecture.

A building is a type of structure with varying degrees of architecture, as well as mechanical and electrical systems. You have heard from others that as a profession we regularly design buildings such as industrial structures, often with no input from architects, and this is clearly building design. Engineers have the training and experience necessary to design and lead such projects. I would like to be clear in saying that there are many buildings fo r which engineers should not lead the design team, and Bill 7 addresses this.

Next, I would like to discuss the apparent inability of engineers to understand the human factor in building design. In my professional career I have analyzed the vibrations caused by the footfall of people walking in the hallways of a hospital. I have combined this analysis with the stiffness of the floor structure to ensure that the resulting vibrations do not negatively affect adjacent radiology labs and surgery rooms. I should point out that the criteria for vibration are different for patients' rooms, a general surgery ward or a highly critical neurosurgery unit.

These vibrations represent a significant human factor, caused by humans, and could affect a life-or- death situation in surgery. However, listening to many of the previous presentations, you would think that, as an engineer, I have no knowledge about the human factor in building design. * (19:20) I am also a bridge designer. The firm I am employed with recently completed a $25-million bridge and road project which provides year-round access to the community of Cross Lake in northern Manitoba. This bridge is a quarter kilometre in length and spans the immense Nelson River.

In the project planning stages, we had public consultation meetings with the local Aboriginal community. We selected the location of the bridge and the route for the new roadway to accommodate traplines, to avoid Aboriginal sites of significance and to best meet the needs and desires of the community. We lengthened one span to allow for snowmobiles to pass under the bridge along the north side of the river, which is not always frozen and would otherwise not allow passage. We provided vertical clearance to ensure that, even with snowpack and drifts, there is no danger to snowmobiles travelling under the bridge.

We restored the abandoned ferry site to create a picnic area. The bridge may attract increased human activity in the future, so we allowed for a future sidewalk and lighting of the bridge. The lighting conduits are on the upstream side of the bridge so that the sidewalk can be on the downstream side to allow the locals to fish off the bridge. The local community loves to fish, and it does not work well to cast your line on the upstream side. These are all human factors and none of them are in the bridge code. It was all just good planning and engineering on this award-winning project.

Now, if we put a roof on this bridge, like the old covered bridges in eastern Canada, according to The Architects Act it would now be a building of almost 3000 metres squared. According to the architects, I would no longer have the capability or training to address the human factors. I could no longer co- ordinate the various disciplines for the work and an architect should be the prime consultant. I will refrain from designing covered bridges until Bill 7 is passed.

With respect to the co-ordination role, previous presentations have suggested that architects are best suited, in all cases, to co-ordinate the structural, mechanical and electrical design, as if engineers do not know each others' roles and cannot communicate. In fact, the firm I work for has a buildings group which includes a well-integrated team of structural, mechanical and electrical engineers and technicians. That is exactly why we have produced award- winning industrial projects. I should add that architects have had an im portant role on many of these projects, as well, but not the lead role.

I have not heard any presentations which demonstrate that there has actually been a problem with such projects and, in fact, the success of thousands of industrial projects by consultants, contractors and owners cannot be disputed. Some of the previous presentations implied that the likes of aerospace and chemical engineers could, or have been, designing schools, hospitals and day cares, a great threat to the public. These comments have implied that we as engineers do not effectively

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 293 self-regulate our profession and that we completely lack ethical conduct. Professional engineers are required by our act, by-laws and code of ethics to perform engineering within our area of expertise and to conduct ourselves with the utmost ethical conduct. Those who are found to be violating the engineering act are subject to investigations and disciplinary action, which can and does include suspension or complete loss of professional licensure in extreme cases. Fortunately, such cases are rare.

Many previous presentations have cited the risk to human health, safety and well-being as a major concern against Bill 7. However, the presentations have failed to demonstrate that these risks have actually materialized. Yes, there are examples of poor designs and failures on projects by both engineers and architects, but there is no alarming trend or evidence of majo r problems in either profession. Why? Because both professions are effectively self-regulated and they are made up of individuals with extensive training and a high level of professionalism and integrity.

I have also heard many architects threaten to leave the province if Bill 7 is passed. I do not believe that architects are going to leave the province because they cannot be the lead on, for example, an industrial project. I also do not think that the City of Winnipeg and the general public will promote a return to boring, utilitarian structures, and I do not think that recent advances in sustainable design are going to be abandoned because of the bill. Finally, many presenters have been requesting further delays, discussions and reviews regarding Bill 7.

After over a decade of dialogue, committees, failed recommendations and no results, the engineering, construction and now also the interior design industries have been backed into a legal corner. We do not need review; we need resolution. In conclusion, I believe that architects play a critical role in our society and that they should have significant input and take the lead role on many projects as accommodated in Bill 7. Architects and engineers should work together, exchanging lead roles at the appropriate times, as has been the norm for years.

There are definitely areas of overlap between the professions, and in these areas engineers have regularly and successfully practised engineering and should continue to do so. However, we have reached a critical impasse, and the last decade of debate has indicated that further dialogue will be fruitless. Finally, without any doubt, I believe that Bill 7 should receive its third reading. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Loewen. The floor is open for questions. Thank you very much. Next on the list we have Elliott Garfinkel. Second call, Elliott Garfinkel.

His name was called this morning, and he will be dropped off the list. Next, we have Don Petk au. A second call, Don Petkau. His name was called this morning, and he will be dropped off the list. Next, we have Stephanie Shaw. A second call, Stephanie Shaw. She was called this morning, and she will be dropped off the list. Next, we have Dorothy Taylor. Do you have papers to hand out? Ms. Dorothy Taylor (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. The floor is yours. Ms.

Taylor: I was going to start this speech on a tear, but I heard last night from one of the committee that the decision is already made. There is no point in my being here, but here I am. I believe in the power of one vote. I am not an architect. I am not an engineer. My degree is in interior design. I am not registered with PIDIM and I am not required to be to work as an interior designer. I own 49 percent of a small architectural practice. I am the loon who tells the story in the floor.

I am the person who would colour the concrete in Costco to make it a more user- friendly environment just like A & B Sound on Pembina Highway. Our small firm is a design-oriented firm. Our experience enables us to create innovative and responsive design projects in many communities, northern, isolated and urban. We provide strong and clear architectural solution s that integrate context, program and the unique requirements of users. Our commitment is in meeting the goals and objectives of our clients, often involving entire communities as stakeholders in the process. Good design does make a difference.

Our commitment to research, innovative new ideas and changing technology keeps us knowledge-

294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 able and up-to-date. The functional variety and the cultural characteristics of many of our projects demand we integrate art, architecture and landscape environment. Collaboration: it all begins with a shared vision. In times like these, you cannot afford to partner with someone who is single-minded. There must be a shared vision and shared ideas right from the start.

We are talking about teamwork, the method of constant dialogue and complementary skills of architecture and engineering interacting to create better solutions that address challenges and make the most of existing infrastructure and deliver results. We work closely with our clients from the outset, fostering great relationships through our unique approach to consulting services. We listen to our clients, ask questions and examine design issues to provide a wide range of options for review and selection. We have a higher aim to make a meaningful contribution to the people we serve.

We are an architectural firm built on competence and performance. We value community because we know together we are more than the sum of our parts. Together, we can make a contribution that we cannot make on our own. Each of us becomes something better and something richer by participating. As design professionals within a project development team, we provide responsive design management needed to ensure projects are completed within program frameworks, project schedules and, especially, budgets. Integrity: we believe in doing what we say we will do and doing what is right.

We live with integrity because we believe it is the only way to do business. Our small firm is the only practice in Canada that regularly attends international conferences on education sponsored by th e American Institute of Architects. The last conference attended was in Washington, D.C.. There we heard about how the General Services Administration Public Building Service has dramatically transformed the quality and design of their facilities through the internationally recognized design excellence program.

Design excellence engages the best private-sector architects, construction managers and engineers to design and build award-winning courthouses, border stations, federal office buildings, laboratories and data processing centres. It works to restore and maintain the vitality of communities where GSA has a presence. We toured the McKinl ey High School recently renovated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a state-of-the-art technological training centre.

What we witnessed was a school incredibly wired for technology, but the lecture hall we were in had no microphones, so we could not hear the presenters, nor was there adequate ventilation so we cooked in February. * (19:30) The Building for the Fu ture program is Great Britain's answer to the unique opportunity to transform secondary schools into unique learning environments that will inspire pupils to achieve more. The United Kingdom also has an organization called the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment which focusses on being a successful client.

We have heard many presentations by the engineers. Their clients were satisfied with what they did for them. Did the client have the benefit of something like the publications Creating Successful Masterplans and Creating Excellent Buildings , both published by CABE? The point here is not to refute the engineers' claim their clients were satisfied. The point here is we are all richer when all the professionals work in concert with one another instead of this screeching-of-the-nails-on-the- blackboard painful process this legislative process has been.

The architects and engineers agreed on a body of people for the joint committee and agreed on the chairperson, and when the result was the Witty Report, suddenly the report and the chairperson responsible are no longer acceptable to the engineers. Yes, David Witty is the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, but his degrees are in regional, community and urban planning, which encompasses both disciplines. The word "architect" is a professional designation. I cannot call myself an architect as I do not have the qualifications and education. Those have been well illustrated by many previous speakers.

To quote from NCARB's White Paper entitled, "Architecture as it Differs from Engineering," which I have e-mailed to every member of this Legislature, quote, "In many jurisdictions, chronic problems arise from engineers seeking to use their registration under the engineering registration act as a basis for designing buildings for human habitation. In

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 295 Manitoba, engineers are registered generically with no distinction made among electrical, structural, mechanical and civil engineers, on the one hand, and aeronautical, agricultural , ceramic, electronic, geological, metallurgical, naval, nuclear, petroleum and surveying engineers on the other hand. The first group may have some connection to and interest in systems employed in designing buildings for human habitation, while the latter have no such connection. All the disciplines are, however, registered as engineers." This was written in 1984.

You might sit there and think, so what is her point, only structural, electrical and mechanical engineers would ever consider sealing drawings. But that is inaccurate. You have heard of at least one school sealed by an agricultural engineer in rural Manitoba. This flawed legislation allows him to do it again and there are real problems with the building. You can also sit there and believe it was necessary as architects do not practise outside of city limits. Sorry, you are wrong again. Our small firm rarely does a job within the city.

In the past five years, we have designed schools in Pukatawagan, Garden Hill, Pauingassi, Pine Creek, Sagkeeng and Skownan, plus numerous arenas, bingo halls, band offices, medical offices and nursing stations in you- have-never-heard-of-this-place, Manitoba. This flawed legislation will definitely affect our practice with the scope of practice being so dramatically changed. I ask the scope of practice remain in The Architects Act. For the MAA to exist as a regulatory body the act needs to stay unchanged.

Moving the ability to self-govern those activities that, by law, only architects are permitted to practise effectively ceases the MAA from being a governing body and therefore a professional licensing body. My partner and I discussed the changes proposed at great length with our staff. My partner and I made the decision to fight this proposed legislation tooth and nail. We knew that everything we have worked so hard to build for more than 20 years was at stake. Andrew Bickford, the grandfather from yesterday, is my partner in practice and husband of over 30 years.

We may, in all likelihood, not be able to continue to work together as we have since high school. It may mean the end of the dream of running a small practice where good design makes a difference and integrity is crucial. I cannot believe how crazy it is this flawed legislation has made it this far, let alone that it will probably pass. I ask you, at least, amend it. I cannot believe this Assembly does not realize how professional organizations are regulated by bodies far greater than our little province. I am only beginning to see the ripple effect beyond my own door. Yes, I live in Podunk Junction.

This legislation proves it. But I still believe in one vote. I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I ought to do. That, by th e grace of God, I will do. Thank you for your time. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for the presentation. You certainly lay out a lot of information for us. Could you just very briefly define for us what change or changes you would like to see? Floor Comment: Scope of practice. Mr. Schuler: You have to wait till your name is announced. Floor Comment: Sorry. Ms.

Taylor: Scope of practice. [interjection] Do you want an elaboration? Removing the scope of practice from The Architects Act, to me, removes the ability for the architects to self-govern themselves. If they cannot self-govern themselves , then who is going to be registering architects? Who is going to be administering the yearly certificates of practice? Who is going to be overseeing the qualifications? Who is going to prevent the interns that now, you have heard many speak, many of whom have worked with our office, they could go out and open their own office. There is nobody overseeing it. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Anything further? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the passion that you have put in your comments. It does not necessarily mean that I am going to agree with everything. What I have found is this whole issue has been one of great interest, not only for people here, but the public as a whole. We see presenter after presenter that feels very passionate about this.

What came to my mind, and I am going to quote it because I thought you said it best, "The point here is we are all richer when all the professions work in concert with one another instead of the screeching-of-nails- on-the-blackboard painful process this legislative process has been." I acknowledge that it is a very difficult process.

296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 I, for one, know there are two of us that cover this particular committee, myself and my leader, and we have not drawn any conclusions as of yet. Whether it is you or the presenters that presented before you, we very much appreciate the effort and the passion of the discussion. I guess if it was our choice, you would not have to be here either. This is something that would have been able to have been worked out and everyone would have been content. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: No further questions? I thank you.

There are two new members added to the bottom of the list. Oliver Beck, private citizen and Kim Wiess, private citizen. We will continue. Our next speaker, Matt Vodrey. Matt Vodrey, do you have any handouts? Mr. Matt Vodrey (Private Citizen): No. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The floor is yours. Mr. Vodrey: Minister Allan and committee, my name is Matt Vodrey. I am currently a student at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba in the graduate program in architecture.

A little back- ground, I was born in Winnipeg, went to high school in Winnipeg, and upon graduation, I went and did my post-secondary schooling in Ontario. Upon graduating, I returned to University of Manitoba to do my degree in architecture and now do my graduate degree in architecture. I would just like to say, Minister Allan, I would like to accept your invitation to come into the University of Manitoba. I would like to see you any time. I would also like to extend the invitation to the rest of the committee. I am free on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Minister Allan, my concern with Bill 7 is the future of my stay in Manitoba. As you say, Minister Allan, Bill 7 is not intended for us to leave the province, but I ask you, why stay? The Province, your government, Minister Allan, supports my education at the University of Manitoba, but it does not support me when I graduate by undermining the profession that I wish to enter. Why stay? Why set up shop in Manitoba? Why should I be a part of this province when you undermine the profession that I wish to enter? I believe in design.

Madam Chairperson in the Chair * (19:40) I believe in design so much I went to design school. I wish to complete my design school ,and I wish to become a competent architect. But, once I do this, I have to compete with engineers for jobs that I was properly trained for. By doing this, I will not be able to by changing the scope of the practice. Minister Allan, your government does not want future architects to leave Manitoba, but you are definitely handing us our hat. I am not a registered architect. I am not yet a competent designer.

But I wish to be by following the guidelines set out to be by my governing association. I am a student pursuing a job in Manitoba. By saying this, I support my future colleague Don Oliver and call upon the minister to delay Bill 7 from proceeding to the third reading. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much. Matt, you are not a stranger to politics, so I can probably be a little bit more direct with my questioning of you. You say that this legislation could seriously impact your staying in the province or staying in the province for that matter. Based on what specifically?

What we want is that we want to make sure, as a committee, as we move into line by line, which now is starting to look more like that will happen tomorrow, that we do not base decisions on, please do not be offended, too much emotion or rhetoric. It has to be on the facts. Synthesize down for us what exactly it is that would make a young man like yourself or, for that matter, other students male and female, young individuals, go so far as to make fairly strong state- ments: "That is it. I am taking my stuff and I am leaving." It is something that has bothered me for the last three days.

I have sat in a lot of these and been through a lot, but I have not seen, in my tenure here as a legislator, that many young people stand in front of a legislative committee and say to us "This is enough to make us leave the province." So I am going to make it very personal. Please, without the emotion, without all the rest of it, what exactly is it about this bill that says to you, "I am contemplating leaving the province?" because I think that is very, very serious. I am sorry if I take another minute. We need you here because, you know that cliché, you are going to pay my pension someday.

We do not have pensions as MLAs, by the way. But it is horrifying to sit here at this committee and hear it, and we hear it again and again and again and again.

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 297 So I ask you, what is the linchpin that makes you say such a statement that our youth, our brightest are coming in front of a legislative committee and saying "We are thinking of leaving" because I will tell you, folks, that is very serious, as a young Manitoban raising his family here, who decided to stay, and I hear the generation younger than me saying, "We are thinking of leaving." I can tell you, I am very, very perturbed by it. Please take your time. Mr. Vodrey: Thank you. I mean, there is power in numbers. I think that speaks for itself.

When students come up to you in the graduate program saying "Why are you trying to keep me here?" Then Minister Allan says you are not intending for us to leave. But, by pursuing this bill, you will be saying to us architects and us potential architects that we are not valued in this province by what we do. Our skills, our training, for the past five to six years I have been going to the University of Manitoba and learning this skill, can be done by someone else. I feel this is wrong. I feel I have gone the proper route, and I intend on carrying out the proper route set for me.

But, yet, someone else is capable and competent enough to do this without the proper route. Meanwhile, there are other places in this country and throughout this world that accept my education as being competent and that alone as being competent. Why should I stay here? B.C. is sounding much better right now for many other reasons. This is, as you say, the importance of it. Self-governing is the i ssue. We, as architects, and in my future I hope to become one, are allowed by legislation to self-govern each other in our profession. If we are not allowed to any more, why should I be here to do it?

I leave it at that. I think it is simple. Madam Chairperson: I just have to ask for leave to go beyond our time limit. Is there leave? [Agreed] Okay. You can ask one more question. Mr. Santos: Five minutes allowed for questioning, and that is the rule. Madam Chairperson: So you are denying leave, Mr. Santos. Mr. Santos: I say we follow the rule. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Leave has been denied. The committee calls Robert Macdonald, private citizen. Mr. Macdonald, did you have a written submission you wanted to circulate? You can proceed, Mr. MacDonald, whenever you are ready. Mr.

Ian Macdonald (Private Citizen): Minister Allan, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to join you today. My name is Ian Macdonald, the "Robert" is an alias, and I am presently a practis ing architect in Winnipeg, regis- tered with the Manitoba Association of Architects.

I came to Winnipeg from Toronto in the fall of 1978 to join the full-time teaching establishment of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Manitoba and was until slightly less than a year ago the head of the Department of Architecture, the graduate program on architecture, a position which I held for a period of six years. This was preceded by six years as head of the undergraduate Department of Environmental Design, which is the four-year pre- professional program that precedes the master's program.

During the past three years I also served as chairman of the Council of Canadian University Schools of Architecture and in that capacity repre- sented all 10 schools of architecture on the board of directors of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. At this point I just want to offer a correction related to Dean Witty. I wish to correct information that was presented to the committee earlier in the day. I feel obligated to bring this item forward since I personally advanced David's name for membership in the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

I think the committee should be aware that the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada is not a regulatory or licensing body. It is an advocacy group representing all architects in Canada and advocates the potential of architecture on behalf of all architects.

To quote President Szathmary at the University of Manitoba, when we talk about the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, we talk about architecture broadly defined, and membership in the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada is not limited to registered licensed architects but also embraces the broader family: interns, students, and allied disciplines who are directly involved in the design of the built environment. David Witty was awarded membership in the MRAIC as a form of acknowledging his contribution to the public awareness of design in the city of Winnipeg beginning with his work with the former

298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 mayor of Winnipeg and I think has served our profession very, very well. David's editorial in a recent issue of the Winnipeg Free Press , which you may have read, is typical of his personal e fforts, and you will notice that most of those comments dealt with urban design and the quality of the urban environment and were not specific to the discipline of architecture.

The other thing that I want to emphasize is the Faculty of Architecture is a multidisciplinary faculty which offers professional programs in city planning, environmental design, interior design and landscape architecture, in addition to the professional program in architecture.

The very fact that he can profes- sionally and fairly oversee these disciplines is testimony to his professionalism and integrity, and you will notice that several of those departments are not necessarily on the same side of the fence in this particular debate that we are having. * (19:50) In addition to, sort of, my various roles as head of the Department of Architecture, I have served on three Canadian architect ural certification board accreditation teams, which in the past few years, scrutinized the professional programs offered at McGill University, Carleton University and the University of Waterloo.

It is interesting to note that all these university scho ols of architecture are affiliated with the respective faculties of engineering of these institutions. In each case, these schools were required by formal conditions of architectural accreditation to demonstrate how they contributed to and benefited from the association. This is the nature of our profession. We are not adversarial and it is not an adversarial relationship. Accreditation looks for and promotes respect, co- operation and collegiality with the profession of architecture.

There is a full expectation that these historically complementary disciplines value the unique contribution that others make. I would like to talk about these young people who have been so ably bringing me the important issues and their concerns forward to you. Prior to that, I would like to simply offer a reflective observation of the discipline of architecture in this province. I must admit that during my 27 years at the University of Manitoba, I have never ceased to be amazed at the dominant profile of architecture in this seemingly most unlikely of places.

Why does one of the largest and most distinguished schools of architecture in North America continue to thrive and enjoy such a promi- nent position within the University of Manitoba and nationally? We have an extraordinary history. The teaching of architecture began in 1913. We have been around that long. McGill University, beginning in 1904, was slightly ahead of us, but the discipline and the teaching of architecture has long been part of the Manitoba scene. It is, therefore, one of the oldest programs of study in Canada and the first in western Canada.

It was the first architectural program in Canada to offer the first professional master's degree of architecture in the early seventies which has served as a model which all other professional programs in the country now have adopted. The Manitoba program, through its long history, has produced and continues to produce some of Canada's finest and best-known architects. They have distinguished themselves and their institution not only in Canada but also throughout the world.

I believe that we all have the responsibility to ask ourselves: Could this educational tradition evolve and thrive without a cultural constituency? You are all politicians and you understand what I mean by that statement. I would argue that it could not and that it exists because this province has, for the better part of the 20th century, recognized and valued the cultural role of architecture and its important mission of defining who we are, what we value and what we aspire to. I sincerely hope that the outcome of this process is consistent with that visionary history.

I think this is a heavy burden that certainly I have as the head of that distinguished school, and you do as part of the history of this province. The second observation I would like to offer addresses the issue of a professional role and our historic relationship with engineering. The office that I interned in as a young architect back in the late sixties was a relatively large architectural and engineering practice in Toronto with a total staff of 300 professionals functioning together in one space.

Half of the staff were architects and the other half were a combination of structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. If you could not learn to work in a multi-disciplinary setting, you got a job somewhere else. The projects being produced at that time, largely by Manitoba graduates, I might add, included the Toronto City Hall, the original airport terminals at

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 299 Pearson Airport and the Toronto Dominion Centre, which at that time, was the largest building project in Canada next to the St. Lawrence Seaway. These projects were executed to their high standard of excellence through the cr eative collaboration of talented architect, engineers and visionary clients. There was simply no other way of doing it. Quality architecture has always required collaboration of both innovative and creative architects and engineers in an effective, integrated team setting.

This is a basic reality in the making of architecture and one of the fundamental assumptions we make in the education of architects. The real world challenges, associated with complex and dynamic project settings and changing social conditions, have always influenced the education of architects. Students entering the Manitoba program, for instance, are taught basic representational skills, elegant craft, theory and history, but, more significantly, are made aware of the multitude of stakeholders in the design process.

This is done to not only make students aware of other disciplines, but to also develop respect for expertise beyond their own and how to embrace it within the design process. Architecture is taught in a unique setting that is referred to as design studio. It is within the studio setting where they learn to develop a strategic framework within which to synthesize a multitude of technological, sociological and economic constraints. The design studio closely emulates the real world setting that deals with actual projects, including the contribution, skills and knowledge beyond their own. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Macdonald, I have to stop you at this point. Mr. Macdonald: Gee, I just had my punch line coming up. Madam Chairperson: I apologize. Do you have one more sentence? Mr. Macdonald: The committee should be aware that there are 120 accredited universities of school of architecture in the United States and 10 in Canada. All of these programs take approximately the same amount of time, four years of undergraduate education and two years of graduate education.

This level of education reasonably reflects the complexity and rigour of the discipline of architecture and the minimum level of skill to competently execute architectural commissions. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Santos: Madam Chair, can we agree that the unread portion also be included in the printing? Madam Chairperson: Is it agreed by committee? [Agreed] Your presentation will appear in its entirety as if it was read. Mr.

Macdonald: I am hopeful that the best interests of the public will remain central to any legislative revisions and facilitate the challenging tasks facing both professions in meeting a complicated and resource-sensitive future. Correction: I wish to correct information that was presented to the committee earlier in the day concerning Professor David Witty. I feel obligated to bring this item forward since I personally advanced his name for membership in the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.

Membership in the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada is not restricted to professional architects and has many levels of membership including David's own profession of planning. David Witty was awarded membership to acknowledge his role in personally raising public awareness of urban design in the City of Winnipeg in a variety of ways. David's editorial in a recent issue of the Winnipeg Free Press is typical of his personal efforts. Additionally, he was very proactive in developing working relationships between the Aboriginal community and the University of Manitoba.

The Faculty of Architecture is a multi- disciplinary faculty, wh ich offers professional programs in city planning, environmental design, interior design and landscape architecture, in addition to the professional program in architecture. The very fact that he can professionally and fairly oversee these disparate disciplines is testimony to his professionalism and integrity. Madam Chairperson: Are there questions for the presenter? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much. The committee calls Terry Cristall, private citizen. You can proceed whenever you are ready, Mr. Cristall. Mr.

Terry Cristall (Private Citizen): Madam Minister, members of the committee, my name is Terry Cristall. I am a professional architect and a principal with Number Ten Architectural Group. I am licensed to practice architecture in four provinces. I am a former president of the Manitoba

300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 Association of Architects, and I am also a past chair of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. These hearings have borne witness to many valid, often opposing, concerns. To everyone's credit, there is clearly a strong commitment to their profes- sional ideals and a passion for what they do. The development community has rightfully demanded that unnecessary impediments to their projects be eliminated. Their belief that The Architects Act will create delays and added costs must be addressed.

Professional interior designers have undoubtedly sought, have understandably, rather sought, the right to practice their profession on interior design alteration projects. Engineers have fairly argued for both recognition of the roles they play in many building types and more clarity in the legislation.

Architects have, with very legitimate concerns, requested that the integrity of their profession and the value of their services be protected. * (20:00) If all professionals are true to the principles that we claim guide our professional conduct, there has been another right championed in these proceedings; the right of the public to expect the highest standards of performance and protection available through our efforts. Professionals must respect the public good, as well as their project obligations. Legislation needs to be in place to ensure we act accordingly.

The origin of our current dilemma, of course, is the fact that some engineers believe that they should have the right to design buildings just as architects do. Some would say not just industrial buildings or small arenas, but any type of building, all said with some engineers acknowledging, yet discounting, the profound difference in education, training, certifi- cation and public responsibility.

The Architects Act, regardless of its age, has correctly decreed in the public interest only those persons who have been educated, trained and tested in the specific field of building design should be allowed to practise accordingly. Now the depth of this education helps ensure our community enjoys the best of the design process. Indeed, the quality of a community's architecture has a very direct influence in its economy and sense of self-worth. The influence of quality architecture is sometimes subtle, but make no mistake, it does profoundly underpin the development of our economic wealth.

If we believe these aspirations are valid, we must find solutions that are inclusive and respectful of each profession. It would be equally prudent to nurture a healthy architectural profession. The fundamental problem my colleagues and I have with the proposed amendments is that they substantially reduce our participation in the most basic of professional rights, that is the right to define one's profession and the skills required to perform it. It now appears the scope of our services will no longer be based on expertise or accreditation.

Instead, it will be determined by people who have a very different set of priorities, far less familiar with the thought process that governs design and, in some cases, people who see the practice of architecture as everyone's right, regardless of background. In my opinion, the proposed changes to The Architects Act are flawed. Rather than providing balance, these amendments are so heavily weighted against architectural involvement as to put at risk the credibility and vitality of the profession in Manitoba.

I do not believe it was the intent of the government to marginalize our architectural community, but I fear this will be the unwitting consequence of Bill 7 as currently drafted. I could speak to many issues that highlight my concern, but I intend to confine my further remarks to the most significant of the proposed changes, that being the amendment transferring control over which exemptions are to be carv ed out of the architect's scope of practice to the Building Standards Board. In effect, this allows the board to define what will be the practice of architecture.

It will not be the Legislature, not our community, rather repre- sentatives of the building industry, of which only one has a comprehensive training in building design. I acknowledge that the Building Standards Board does play an important role in the administration of the construction industry. It has, however, almost no expertise to regulate a profession, nor should it have that role. I suspect this amendment is the consequence of failed attempts between the MAA and APEGM to resolve their differences. Change the process or change the people negotiating.

We should not be putting one or both professions at a long-term risk for the sake of expediency. There are several proposed amendments which will require

interpretation or definition by the Building Standards Board if they are responsible for our profession. These amendments underscore my concern that the profession of architecture is in serious jeopardy. Take, for example, the definition of

November 23, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 301 building area in the draft table, which defines where a professional designer is required. A subtle substitution of the term "building area" in place of "gross area" when referring to 600-square-metre limitation will permit an argument to be made for exemption on much larger buildings, buildings normally understood to be the joint responsibility of the architect and engineers. In this regard, I should add that the salient issue is human occupancy. We are not talking about houses, small buildings for business and personal services in this regard .

The current legislation exempts buildings for those purposes up to 400 square feet in gross area. The Manitoba Association of Architects is, I know, willing to increase that to 600 square metres gross area, which is consistent with the least restricted jurisdictions in Canada. When buildings become larger they become more complex with greater human occupancy. The term "gross area" therefore critically defines a safety factor in the public interest. The architectural community appreciates that not all building alterations require an architect.

The proposed amendments, however, are so general as to now allow major work normally and commonly managed by architects to occur outside the profession. Imagine the new Millennium Library being built without an architect. That is the implication of the proposed draft table for alterations. That is the thinking encouraged and supported by this legislation. Arena-type building exemptions now being proposed allow engineers of any discipline to design them provided the buildings hold a thousand or less fixed seats.

It is entirely possible to limit an initial permit set of drawings to a thousand seats today and, with the opening on alterations alluded to earlier, add more seats later, all without the requirement of an architect. This may not be the intent of the amendment, but who is to say that will be the understanding a year or two from now when the BSB is asked to intervene. Then there is the issue of the industrial buildings. The proposed legislation implies that no architect need be involved in any industrial occupancy. Surely there are limits.

Industrial buildings can contain hazardous material on large numbers of people. Should we be allowing a different standard of care and protection for factory workers than buildings of the same size used for office and retail functions? And there is an opportunity for confusion on the engineering exemption clause under subsection 15, which allows the engineering discipline, regardless of training, to oversee the construction of prototypical buildings in lieu of a registered architect. I will skip here; time is out.

The essential concern, however, is that the proposed legislation undermines the credibility of the architectural profession and regulates it to an option of choice. This legislation has all the potential to smother the industry that has been the leading advocate for a quality built environment. We know the current legislation is flawed. Surely, we can address these issues without having to compromise one profession for the benefit of another. We can and should co-exist in a supportive, beneficial, advanta- geous relationship. Please adjust the legislation to ensure a balanced co-existence. Thank you very much.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there questions for the presenter? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Cristall: Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: The committee calls S. Mark Francis, private citizen. Mr. Francis, you can proceed. Mr. S. Mark Francis (Private Citizen): Thank you, Chair, Minister Allan, honourable members. My presentation is a little thrown together, so forgive me. M y n a m e i s M a r k F r a n c i s . I a m a b u s i n e s s consultant whose work entails efforts on a range of projects.

Currently my primary client is C&Q, the new stock market in Canada, and as well the engineers are also currently a client. * (20:10) I am also the local chair of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. My family is one half artists, including my grandmother who trained as an architect in her youth but never practised, subsequently became an artist, My uncle is an architect who trained here in Manitoba. Most of his professional life has been spent in British Columbia. He tells me that for the last several years he has never been happier professionally.

He works for engineers in an engineering firm, and, when the opportunity arose for him to acquire more shares in a firm that allowed for joint professional ownership, he leapt at the opportunity and borrowed as much

302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 23, 2005 money as he could. He has never been happier professionally. In the past, the projects I have worked on have included several relating to the safe processing of environmentally hazardous wastes, multi-model transportation and other issues and projects across western Canada and Ontario. Most of my consulting has also entailed co-ordinating the efforts of professionals of multiple disciplines, generally at least three.

They have included investment bankers, engineers, geoscientists, lawyers, chartered accountants, environmental scientists, professional managers and specific-industry specialists. I would remind you of Alan Borger's earlier remarks when he talked about the overlap between accountants and lawyers in the preparation of tax planning and how it is important that it is not specifically enshrined in legislation as to where the overlap lies and how it is handled. In fact, either an accountant or a lawyer can manage this. I find that this will play directly to a number of my remarks.

I intend to speak about the professionalization of the modern world, the demand for engineers and other trained people, including architects, engineers who have steadily driven safety improvements in industrial processes, in particular the mining and metal processing industry, the impact of marginal costs of business decisions and the va

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-sed7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf sed7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3bd033e35c4f9a6b8c013b4f4e55f00102c89b26

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).