Manitoba Committee Hansard — 21 November 2005 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 1, 38th Legislature, 4th Session)

38-4-sed1

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. 1 – 6 p.m., Monday, November 21, 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 F ort Whyte P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, November 21, 2005 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Allan Mr. Altemeyer, Ms. Brick, Messrs. Cullen, Eichler, Ms. Irvin-Ro ss, Messrs. Maloway, Martindale, Rocan, Santos, Schuler APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights WITNESSES: Mr. Kevin Steckley, Private Citizen Mr. Andrew Skelto n, Private Citizen Mr.

Jon Hobbs, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Mr. Garry Stasynec, Private Citizen Mr. Garland Laliberte, Dean Emeritus, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba Mr. Myles Kubinec, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Hamlin, Private Citizen Mr. Myron Britton, Private Citizen Mr. Lawrence Homenko, Private Citizen Mr. David Derksen, Private Citizen Ms. Aynslee Hurdal, Private Citizen Mr. Don Oliver, Private Citizen Mr. Vince Kwiatkowski, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Eastwood, Private Citizen Mr. Tom Monteyne, Private Citizen Mr. Terry Danelley, Private Citizen Mr. Jim Orlikow, Private Citizen Mr.

Dave Lalama, Private Citizen Mr. David Kressock, Private Citizen Ms. Gerri Stemler, Private Citizen Mr. Michael Farion, Private Citizen Mr. Victor Sven , Private Citizen Mr. Scott Stirton, Chief Executive Officer, Smith Carter Architects and Engineers Inc. Mr. Ken Hildebrand, Private Citizen Mr. Glen Gross, Private Citizen Mr. Greg Hasiuk, Private Citizen Mr. Spencer Court, Private Citizen Mr. David Penner, Private Citizen Ms. Rina Ricci , Private Citizen Mr. Robert Winslow, Private Citizen Mr. Les Stechesen, Private Citizen Mr. Kent Woloschuk, Private Citizen Mr. John Woods, Private Citizen Mr.

Peter DeSmedt, Councillor, City of Winnipeg Mr. Guy Préfontaine, Private Citizen Mr. Gareth Simons, Private Citizen Mr. Harold Funk, Private Citizen Mr. Bruce Pauls, Private Citizen Mr. Ed Calnitsky, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 7–The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Philip Kienholz, Private Citizen Mr. Ron Bell, President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Kevin Humeniuk, Private Citizen Mr. Jim Yamashita, Chai r, Partners Program Mr. Ryan Fidler, Private Citizen Mr. James Weselake, Private Citizen Ms.

Jennifer Reynolds, Private Citizen Mr. John White, Private Citizen Ms. Maiya Uprety , Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 7–The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 This evening the committee will be considering the following bill: Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act. We do have presenters registered to speak to the bill. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on this bill? [Agreed] Is it the will of the committee that I read out the names of the presenters? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Chairperson: No. Thank you very much.

For the information of the committee, there are currently 206 presenters re gistered to speak to the bill–204, excuse me. I just wanted to also mention, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to register and has not done so, if you would please register at the back of the room. As a reminder, 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of the committee. In what order does the committee wish to hear the presenters this evening? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): The usual procedure would be to hear out-of-town presenters first.

Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to hear out-of-town presenters first? [Agreed] The Clerk received a request from Mr. Jon Hobbs, listed as No. 69 in your presenters' list. Mr. Hobbs has flown in from Ottawa and is catching an early morning flight back to Ottawa in the morning. Is there consent of the committee to allow Mr. Hobbs to speak early in the speaking order, and, if yes, what number do you wish him to be heard at? An Honourable Member: There are only three ahead of him. Madam Chairperson: There are three ahead of him, so– An Honourable Member: Out-of-town presenters.

Madam Chairperson: –we will continue then with our out-of-town presenters first. Just for the information of the committee, the other request we have is that we do have an individual here who is accompanied by his spouse, Mr. Kevin Steckley, and his spouse is visually impaired and has brought two seeing eye dogs along. The concern is that this individual's dogs may not last for the entire term, so would it be the will of– An Honourable Member: First. Madam Chairperson: First? Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Steckley to come and speak first? [Agreed] Thank you.

I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations and five minutes for questions from committee members. As well, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance their name will be dropped to the bottom of the presenters' list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time their name will be removed from the presenters' list.

I would also like to inform the committee that written submissions have been received from the following private citizens and organizations: Philip Kienholz, private citizen; Ron Bell, Association of Manitoba Municipalities; Kevin Humeniuk, private citizen; Jim Yamashita, Partners Program; Ryan Fidler, private citizen; Jim Weselake, private citizen. Copies of these briefs were made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting.

Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] For the information of the committee members, Jim Weselake is listed as 165 on this list. You may strike his name off. I would also like to advise presenters that Room 254, which is just directly down the hallway from this committee room, has been set up as an overflow room. Staff will ensure that Room 254 is canvassed if a name is called here and no one comes forward.

Just prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to inform members of the public of the process when it comes time for questions from committee members on your presentation. The proceedings of our committee meetings are recorded in or der to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be a member of the committee or a presenter, I have to first say the MLA or presenter's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn your mike on and off.

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 I would also like to advise that because there are more than 20 presenters registered to speak, the committee can only sit past midnight if there is unanimous consent to do so. I would like to thank you all very much for your patience, and we will now proceed with public presentations. The first presenter as per our previous agreement will be Mr. Kevin Steckley. For committee members, Mr. Steckley is listed as 130. Mr. Kevin Steckley (Private Citizen): Good evening, Minister Allan, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Kevin Bruce Steckley and I am a professional engineer. I graduated with a Bachelor of Applied Science, Civil Engineering in 1980 and became a registered professional engineer in 1982. In 1985, I moved to Manitoba from Ontario to work for an engineering firm in Winkler. Engineers in rural Manitoba, like other professionals serving the public such as financial advisors, doctors, et cetera, are typically generalists who bring in expertise as required and/or desired by their clients.

Steckley Consulting Engineers Inc. was formed in 1989 and, since that time, has been providing engineering services to rural Manitoba. These services consist of municipal, structural and building engineering for what in the proposed bill is referred to as architecture. Our firm has met the needs of clients from Virden to Piney and Emerson to Bloodvein First Nation.

We have provided building engineering services under all building classifications in the Manitoba Building Code: group A, churches, restaurants, community centres; group B, day cares with infants; group C, apartments, row housing; group D, pharmacies, offices; group E, stores; and group F, industrial buildings.

Building sizes have been with plan areas up to 1700 square metres and gross areas up to 5200 square metres. * (18:10) The definition of area in the current design environment is not clear and in some circles has been interpreted as gross building area and not in a manner which is consistent with the Manitoba Building Code, the legal document which governs buildings in Manitoba.

The Building Code definition is "Building area means the greatest horizontal area of a building above grade within the outside surface of the exterior walls or within the outside surface of exterior walls and the centre line of firewalls," clause 1.1.3.2(1) of the Manitoba Building Code. This needs to be used to determine building area. It is essential that the definition be consistent as building area will determine when a certain profession is required.

Our projects typically begin with a client working with someone in the community or a lumber yard to create a floor plan and elevations or to look for a building. They then bring the plans to us, and we review it for compliance to

Part 3 of the Manitoba Building Code, life safety, i.e., fire separations, exit paths, numbers of exits, et cetera, and refine the drawing with the client to make it conform to the Manitoba Building Code. The rural Manitobans we have worked with know what they want in the look and layout of the building. Once the floor plan is established, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electrical engineering are completed to provide engineering drawings and specifications from which to build. Engineers are needed to design buildings.

The following diagram illustrates our typical design team. You have the owner surrounded by a mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, building engineering or architecture. Given the current conditions, the injunction places architects above the entire design team and the interests of the people of Manitoba. Once the engineering drawing and specifications are completed, they are reviewed by the authority having jurisdiction, AHJ building inspector, and a permit is issued.

During construction , site observations are carried out by the individual engineers to confirm that the building is being built in general conform- ance to the approved drawings and specifications. When the building owner, like some of you with your homes, requires a structural site observation, such as after a flood, an engineer as well as an architect would be required under the current injunction. A structural engineer is the one who can determine the structural adequacy and required repairs, yet Manitobans would be faced unnecessarily with additiona l professional fees. Bill 7 corrects this.

Based upon our typical project and excluding building engineering, over 75 percent of the design is done by engineers. It clearly makes sense that an engineer should have the opportunity to be prime consultant as provided for in Bill 7. On projects, prime consultants generally choose the design team.

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 Winnipeg firms typically do not choose rural sub- consultants. If the prime consultant is rural, he will have the option to keep work in rural Manitoba. The AHJ building inspector should have the power to determine where the services of a specific engineering discipline are needed and do not require an architect to look over their shoulder and collect a fee for no added value. I have gained experience in building engineering by using the codes for over 25 years, taking courses to upgrade my skills, and as recently as the fall of 2004, by taking three courses at Red River College on

Part 3 of the Building Code. These courses are the same courses taken by AHJ building inspectors to certify them to review

Part 3 building submissions for permit. Each of the three courses is five days in duration with a written exam and a minimum percentage required to pass. I successfully completed all three courses with marks above 90 percent. Our clients have had the opportunity to use architects, yet they choose us. When asked why, clients indicate they know what they want and do not want additional cost. Under the current conditions created by the injunction, it is dictated to rural Manitobans that they have to retain an architect on all buildings over 400 square metres.

Manitobans lose the right to choose an engineer for building engineering. Currently, de lays are experienced as projects incur added costs while an architect is retained. While there ar e engineers throughout Manitoba, there are only two architects in rural Manitoba. Should the architect be from Winnipeg, there will be additional costs to Manitobans for travel time. Additional costs will also be incurred during construction as the architect must perform their own site observations to certify the building for occupancy.

In rural Manitoba, the cost of site observations can be the greater portion of these professional fees. Under Bill 7, engineers meeting the requirements of a joint board may be grandfathered by obtaining a recognition certificate. This is essential to provide Manitobans with an economical choice for building engineering in the short term and provide a smooth transition. In the long term, when I cease to practise engineering, my firm will require an architect under Bill 7. This bill provides a transition period to develop new partnerships with architects and enables our firm to hire an architect as an employee.

I have had the opportunity to work with Jeff Penner of Road Architecture Inc. on a project and applaud him for setting up a rural practice. I look forward to working with him on future projects and am pleased that Bill 7 gives rural Manitobans options outside of the Perimeter. Where a client desires the services of an architect, that service should be available. It should not be forced upon them or force them to pay additional fees for no added value. We must continue to keep Manitoba's economy strong. The current injunction is slowing Manitoba's economy and causing Manitobans to pay additional unnecessary costs.

This affects each Manitoban, particularly those in rura l Manitoba suffering from two poor crop years and th e BSE crisis. They need their money for their families and increased energy costs. The mechanism of the joint board is a concern as, on past negotiations, consensus, although achieved at the joint board level, has not been approved at the member level. This obstacle will be eliminated as Bill 7 gives the joint board power and, should they fail to establish criteria and conditions, this responsibility falls to the Chair. The Chair of this board must be free from bias and fair in his decision.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for their work in creating a bill which provides (1) a framework which continues to give Manitobans the ability to choose and minimize costs; (2) a choice as to prime consultant; (3) a mechanism to resolve disputes; (4) a process to keep the courts free from unnecessary lawsuits; and (5) a timeline for companies to develop new partnerships. With the timely passage of Bill 7, I thank you for allowing design professionals to get back to building a better Manitoba. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steckley. Are there any questions for Mr. Steckley? Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Now, my question deals with the issue of backlog. I mean, people have been concerned that after the injunction there has been a big backlog of buildings which are not being built because they have not had access to architects or whatever reason. Can you tell us what the backlog is in rural Manitoba? Mr. Steckley: In rural Manitoba, I find that clients are delaying. They are waiting for the current climate to clear. Mr. Gerrard: Another point I had was that you raised a concern about the difference between gross

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 area and building area, and the specifics are actually in the regulations. Is that correct? Mr. Steckley: There is a definition in the Building Code but there has been a different definition being brought forward, it is my understanding, in The Architects Act. Mr. Gerrard: Okay. What are you suggesting should be the situation? Mr. Steckley: The Building Code is the document governing buildings in Manitoba, so the definition should come from the Building Code. Mr.

Denis Rocan (Carman): The federal government, the provincial government and, I believe, the Asper family, when they were doing a search for a particular individual to build their Human Rights Museum, can you tell me whether they were looking for an engineer or were they looking for an architect? Mr. Steckley: Based on the design team that I would put together, 75 percent of that design team is engineers. Currently, I have the expertise on certain buildings to provide the building engineering as well, so in my opinion, engineering services are required. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now return to the out-of-town list of presenters. The next presenter up is on page 3, Andrew Skelton, private citizen. Mr. Skelton, you can proceed. * (18:20) Mr. Andrew Skelton (Private Citizen): Minister Allan, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, my name is Andrew Skelton. I am a registered member of the Manitoba Association of Architects. I support the position of my colleague Don Oliver, whom you w ill hear from soon, and I call upon the minister and this committee to delay Bill 7 from proceeding to third reading.

My comments are based primarily on two types of experience, one of three and a half years as a chief building official in a rural area that included one small city of 10 000 people, and two years as an architect, working primar ily with an engineering firm, also mostly in rural areas, on commercial and light industrial projects, mostly large enough to require professional design but small enough to not require sprinklers. There seems to be a concern that enforcing the present architects act might cause unreasonable cost and delays in the process.

Based on my experience, my opinion is that more rather than less professional design involvement is needed in the construction industry. Secondly, this is only going to occur by increased attention to regulations. Now, increased participation by professionals may cause some increase in the professional costs, but the level of this increase would be minimal. Presently in the market with which I am familiar the fees for design and site supervision for a building are typically less than the real estate agent's fees would be just to sell the building.

The participation of design professionals in the process is currently unreasonably underfunded. This reduced level of design fees is a product of business courses and competition. It has been identified in at least one Commission of Inquiry report–that is about the collapse of a food store in Burnaby–as a factor contributing to an unacceptably low level of profess- sional involvement. This trend toward minimum levels of professional involvement was cited as one of the factors contributing to the building's collapse. So an increase in design expenditures is warranted.

It is my opinion that the costs can be absorbed by the process without difficulty and that the benefits of increased services will far outweigh the costs. In order to sell a used vehicle, the vehicle must pass inspection by a qualified mechanic. The cost of this inspection may have b een a concern to the used car business when the requirement was first introduced. However, vehicle certification has reduced the risk of accidents. This expense is now simply accepted as worthwhile even if for enforce- ment purposes it has to be applied to all cars, some of which are still in good condition.

In the same way, increased expenditures for design and site inspections in buildings can be well worthwhile for health and safety benefits. It can be shown that proper design inspection can sometimes beat out the process and reduce other costs. I am going to give you two examples. A very typical situation is a design-built addition to a commercial or industrial building for which management of the project is by the owner directly rather than by a hired professional. The owner makes an agreement with a contractor to put up the addition for a fixed price, and that fixed price includes

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 professional design. His financing is secured on the basis of this price. The contractor, in order to calculate his bid, has asked an engineer for a price to design just the foundations and a floor plan. The contractor includes no other design costs because the design of the various components can be included in the subtrade prices for them, like the building shell, the heating systems and so on. So all the parties get committed to the project and pass the point of no return by the time the drawings are submitted for permit review.

These drawings are basically a foundation plan, a floor plan and a promise of erecting joints soon to come from the building supplier. Then the building permit review identifies unforese en problems, such as inadequate water supply for firefighting, the need for wheelchair access or the need for fire protection on the outside walls due to the proximity of these to the lot line. By now the budget is already set. There is no money available for changes in design or changes in construction.

If architectural services had been a requirement of the process, they would have been hired at the beginning and the planning and the budget of the project would have included these elements. The scramble for design changes which must now take place is expensive and cumbersome for everybody involved, including the building official, and causes delay at a very inconvenient time. So a regulation requiring architectural services reduces the risk of such situations developing.

The second example, the Building Code requires that the construction of pressure treated wood foundations be inspected and certified by an engineer. The certification now typically submitted is inadequate, because while it implies total compli- ance, the wording really specifically certifies structural compliance only. Structural compliance is not much of a concern. The concern is durability under damp surface conditions.

Even if the components are properly sized, which is structural compliance, they will deteriorate quickly if not installed with proper fasteners and adequate provision for waterproofing and drainage. Therefore, an increase in the number and scope of inspections to specifical ly include these aspects is warranted, and since the cost of repair to a faulty foundation could be high, the cost of better inspections would be like a premium for good insurance. Having made that case, I would like to give some consideration to the context in which The Architects Act, the engineers act and the Building Code are enforced.

Enforcement: Architects and engineers acts are enforced on a daily basis only indirectly as called for by the code, so changes to these two acts will not be effective unless they are reflected in the code or in some fashion brought into the scope of responsibility of the building officials who enforce the code. But the code should not define which professional must be involved. Rather, it should reflect the require- ments for professional involvement that are prescribed by legislation of the two professions. Political climate: The code is mostly enforced at the municipal level, not the provincial level.

Even where code enforcement is by the provincial Office of the Fire Commissioner, the OFC is actually acting as an agent providing a service to the municipality. Therefore, municipal councillors can be and some- times are easily brought u nder pressure from their constituents to help resolve disputes in code

interpretation between an owner or a designer and the building official. If they try to help, they are vulnerable to accusations of political interference. If they leave the issue in the hands of the building official, they can be seen as unresponsive. So the requirements are needed to ensure health and safety, but both the requirements and the responsibilities must be clear in order to protect the individuals involved. Scope of services: The benefit of good design service is not well understood.

For a substantial portion of projects, professional design services are engaged only if they are required by the building official for the building permit. Also, the scope of these services that are hired is limited to the absolute minimum that is insisted upon by that official. Financing for services: Design services are currently badly underfunded. Since the mechanism for cost control of design services is the free market, rather than fee schedule, services for both design and construction supervision are quoted in advance at a minimum level by designers who want to secure the work.

So the lowest quote is often one that has been based on an underestimation of the scope of the project. So the budget for services and the services that subsequently are provided are less than adequate. As I said before, the fees for design and safety provision for a building are typically less than the real estate fees would be just to transfer ownership of the building.

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 Attitude: Lack of regard for health and safety issues permeates not only the building industry but its clientele as well, and not only in the private sector but also among our civic leaders as well. Even for public buildings such as schools and churches and arenas, it is often a struggle to force compliance, even with the basic permitting procedures. Legal action can be needed to force such obvious safety measures as a proper fence around a swimming pool.

Conclusion: That the recent court decision may increase the participation of architects in the industry is a positive change. There is little substance to the worry that this increased participation might slow the rate of economic growth, and although the intention behind some parts of Bill 7 may be worthwhile, there is no urgency to implement it quickly. So I concur with the objections you are going to hear by other architects with specific aspects of Bill 7, and I request that it not proceed to third reading at this time. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions for Mr. Skelton? Mr.

Gerrard: You were a chief building official in a community of about a thousand people– Mr. Skelton: Ten thousand. Mr. Gerrard: Ten thousand people. Which community was that? Mr. Skelton: Selkirk. Mr. Gerrard: Okay. Your recommendations are in part based on your experiences with problems as they were occurring in the Selkirk area? Mr. Skelton: That is right. Mr. Gerrard: So I am just trying to get clear. You would bring from that time, working in a municipality, concerns with what you saw on a day- to-day basis with how things were working. Is that correct? Mr.

Skelton: That is correct, but you see the same problems as a designer working anywhere in the province. * (18:30) Madam Chairperson: Are there any other questions for the presenter? Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Skelton. For the information of the committee, I have just received a request from Jennifer Reynolds for the presentation to be included as a written submission to Bill 7, and we are going to distribute copies to committee members.

Does the committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in the committee transcripts for this meeting? [Agreed] Our next out-of-town presenter is Jeff Penner, private citizen. I am going to call once again, Jeff Penner, private citizen, No. 38 on the list. One last time, and Mr. Penner's name then will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Jeff Penner, private citizen. Seeing that Mr. Penner has not arrived, we will then move on to our next out-of-town presenter. Peter Hargrave, private citizen. Once again, Peter Hargrave, private citizen. And one last time for Peter Hargrave, private citizen.

Seeing that Mr. Hargrave is not here, we will now move to Jon Hobbs, from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. Welcome to Manitoba, Mr. Hobbs. You can proceed. Mr. Jon Hobbs (Royal Architectural Institute of Canada): Thank you very much, and thank you for your indulgence and the indulgence of the committee to allow me to go ahead of the pack here. I think first I would like to provide a brief introduction and some personal background on why this issue is important to me and to my organization, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. My name is Jon Hobbs.

I am currently an architect licensed in the province of Ontario and the executive director of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. I became an architect at the encouragement of my father, an engineer, a metallurgical engineer to be exact, who understood the difference between architecture and engineering. His assessment was that I should pursue a car eer in architecture. My father and our neighbour, his electrical engineering friend, knew that building design was for architects.

B e f o r e m o v i n g t o O t t a w a t o w o r k o n b e h a l f o f our profession, I was in private practice for nearly 20 years, and I should point out that more than a few of my clients were, indeed, engi neers. In particular, the late Ted or Edward McCormick who was the founder of a large and successful engineering firm, McCormick Rankin, a friend that still holds an esteemed reputation in Ontario, came to me to design a condominium and a store. Ted knew when he

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 needed architectural advice. Many of our clients included other engineers, the Canadian General Electric Company, a firm run by several engineers who designed and produced large electrical motors and turbines in Peterborough, Ontario, these engineers knew that when it came to accommodating humans and understanding their space and office needs, an architect was absolutely necessary.

Upon moving to Ottawa, I initially served as our national practice adviser, where I was editor-in-chief for the Canadian Handbook of Practice for Architects and I was a co-ordin ator for provincial regulatory matters, and this is where I came to understand the regulato ry framework for the architectural profession in Canada. In Ottawa, well, we have a lot of things.

We have a lot of hot air these days about election, but we also have many national associations, hundreds of them, in fact, and I am pleased to report to you that the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada works very frequently and co-operatively with our engineering counterparts, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada and the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. We understand and respect each others' mandate.

In fact, tomorrow the RAIC and ACEC, that is the national associations for architects and engineers, we are hosting our federal members of Parliament to educate them about the importance of design, construction and infrastructure to Canada, its economy and, especially, to our quality of life. Tonight I would like to make four points. I would like to provide you with a definition of architecture and a better understanding of what archi- tecture is. I would like to indicate why architecture is important to Winnipeg and to Manitoba. I would like to explain about the difference between architecture and engineering.

I would like to describe the situation across Canada. Let me repeat. What architecture is, why it is important to you here in Manitoba, how architecture differs from engineering and where we stand on this issue across Canada. I would first like to read quickly a definition of architecture, produced by the Union internationale des architectes, or the UIA, which says, "The practice of architecture c onsists of professional services in connection with town planning as well as the design, construction, enlargement, conservation, restoration or alteration of a building or group of buildings.

These professional services include, but are not limited to, planning and land-use planning; urban design; provision of preliminary studies, designs, models, drawings, specifications and technical documentation; co-ordination of technical documentation prepared by others, such as consulting engineers, urban planners, landscape architects and other specialist consultants as appropriate and without limitation; construction economics; contract administration; monitoring of construction; and project management." I should point out that this definition is recognized by the United Nations and by UNESCO and it is used in many parts of the world.

It does not fully explain what architecture is, however. Vitruvius, a Roman architect and a first architectural historian, defined architecture as achieving three things, firmness, commodity and delight. These words are pretty obscure and I will try and explain them. By firmness, what Vitruvius meant was integrity, structural soundness and durability. All buildings must be structurally sound.

It goes without saying that all engineers and architects realize this and both can achieve this through their professional design services, whether it be a steel frame for a skyscraper or a building envelope that can withstand the rigors of a Manitoba winter. Commodity means functionality, the second characteristic. In other words, a building that is able to function well or solves a problem. For example, a warehouse solves the problem of storage of goods by keeping them dry and well arranged and accessible.

However, solving a problem that involves human activity, that is, a building that functions and is suitable for people, whether it be a dwelling, a place of work, a place of worship or recreation, adds another dimension of complexity. A house must be suitable and comfortable to live in. A hospital must serve as an institution that supports healing and good health outcomes. A church must inspire. A laboratory must accommodate a myriad of research functions. Only an architect is trained to solve problems affecting human beings and how humans function and operate in buildings.

This is basic training for an architect. The Arkansas Supreme Co urt put this best when it rendered a judgment on a case in 2003, and I read a quotation, "A person of ordinary intelligence can glean that architects plan and design buildings primarily intended for people to work and live in, and engineers plan and design buildings primarily

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 intended for the accommodation of equipment, vehicles, goods, and/or processes." The final characteristic of architecture is delight, as described by Vetruvius. Delight means pleasing the senses and inspiring human beings to see, feel, touch, and fully experience our built environment. Buildings must not only be visually pleasing, but they must support a wide range of human behaviours, such as resolving aural or acoustic requirements for an opera house. Delight is most definitely the purview of an architect.

Beauty, grace, and delight are not necessarily esoteric, luxurious or frivolous, as I will go on to explain. * (18:40) Architecture, therefore, is a building or built form that has firmness, commodity and delight, or one that is durable and endures due to its integrity and technical applications, one that successfully supports human occupancy and human activity and one that provides inspiration, stimulation and esthetic satisfaction and is suitable to mankind. Two minutes, okay. I will read quickly. Now, why is architecture important to Canada, Manitoba and to Winnipeg?

The design of our cities is key to ensuring a vital, healthy and competitive economy in the 21st century. Only those cities that offer a diverse and fine quality of life, that is cities that support and produce good design, will attract investment and knowledge workers. It is critical to the economy of this province and this city that it remain a leading and dynamic place that can attract business and skilled labour. This city is blessed with a wonderful historic and architecturally significant area, the Exchange District, and I am sure y ou recognize the cultural, social and economic benefits of this district.

You must remember that today's buildings will be tomorrow's heritage. Today's buildings are tomor- row's heritage. It is critical for the long-time survival to ensure that the built legacy is at least as good today as that of the last century. I have left with you a consultation paper and a model architecture policy that elaborates on this more. I would now like to talk about how architecture differs from engineering, and I am going to leave my only copy of this for you. It is an NCARB document on architecture as it differs from engineering. First, the training of architects varies from that of engineers.

At university, architects spend over 50 semester hours in design,

whereas engineers spend about 12 semester hours. Architects study general courses in structural systems and environmental systems,

whereas engineers spend considerably more time in the study of one specific system. Secondly, internship and examination for architects differs from e ngineers. Internship for architects is very prescrip tive and includes design and construction documents among other things. Engineering internship is less– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Hobbs, if you could make your concluding remarks, please. Mr. Hobbs: Okay. Well, I would like to talk about the situation across Canada. I think this document outlines the differences. Madam Chairperson: At this point, I am going to have to–I apologize–ask you to stop.

If you have copies of your presentation, we can have them circulated to the members here of the committee. I understand there are some questions. Mr. Schuler has a question for you. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you very much, Mr. Hobbs, for presenting to this committee, coming all this way, and we wish you a safe flight back home again. Thank you very much for the booklet you gave us, and I see you even feature prominently one of our bridges. Thank you very much. However, we do have in front of us Bill 7, and we will be sitting for numerous days by the looks of things.

Can you, unfortunately in a minute, tell us Bill 7, yea, nay, and why? Mr. Hobbs: I would suggest you reconsider it. I think someone mentioned a definition, "gross floor area." Certainly that should be reviewed, the definition of that or "area." I think also you need to review the grandfathering clauses and leave the regulation of architectur e with what you as legislators have created, the Manitoba Association of Architects. Mr. Schuler: Yes, and if there is something specific, Mr. Hobbs, that you would like this committee to consider, perhaps you could even leave it with us in written form.

I had a quick look at your presentation. It certainly spells out architecture. However, what we are looking at is Bill 7, and anything specific to it would be very much appreciated. Mr. Gerrard: I would ask you, just briefly, to give us a comparison of the situation if we had Bill 7,

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 with how that would compare with the situation across the country. Mr. Hobbs: Unfortunately, that was the big part of my presentation. I would say that, in Ontario, the legislation describes what architects do and it is reinforced by the Building Code Act. I have left a matrix of that Building Code Act with you. In other provinces, in particular Québec, and I have a copy of the Québec legislation with me to give you, it is done by exception, and the exceptions are very small in area and requirements.

This is the same situation in British Columbia and elsewhere. I was on the council at the Ontario Association of Architects in the eighties, I have forgotten when, when this issue came up and we went through the process of grandfathering engineers into architecture and architects into engineers. A joint board determined what steps they had to go through to qualify and both had to become members of either association and be regulated by the association that they were practising in. I think nine engineers became architects, two architects became engineers.

They became members of those associations and were subject to those associations' regulations. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Have a safe flight home. Mr. Hobbs: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Our next out-of-town presenter is Garry Stasynec, a private citizen. He is No. 111 on page 10. You can proceed, Mr. Stasynec. Mr. Garry Stasynec (Private Citizen): Good evening minister, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Garry Stasynec. I am a professional engineer working in the mechanical building systems area.

We have a small firm of four and I opened the doors in 1986, to give you some perspective of our history. Our work experience in cludes hospitals, office buildings, personal care homes, industrial buildings, industrial systems and things like retail outlets. A good portion of our work is derived from repairs, renovations, upgrades and replacements of existing mechanical systems where we deal directly with owners. The rise in energy prices has focussed the public's attention on energy conservation and that is a significant part of our work now.

We have also had some limited experience in insurance and forensic work. So that gives you a bit of background as to what our company does. On a personal note, I am a member of the National Research Council's standing committee on building and plumbing services. You may be aware that the National Research Council is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the National Building Code. For the last four years I have participated in the rewriting of part six, "heating, ventilating and air conditioning," and part seven, "plumbing services." Part seven is published separately as the National Plumbing Code.

I just received my copy of this this morning, so it is out for use. It is my opinion that there are two fundamental questions on the table here: one related to imagi- nation and style and the other related to health and safety of the public. The first question is does an architect's training and e xperience provide a unique and valuable knowledge of a building's form and function such that they as a group should be intimately involved in the design of our built environment. I think that is a fundamental question, and it certainly is addressed by the previous speaker's definition of architecture.

So question two in my mind is does an architect's training and experience provide such an exclusive knowledge of the building codes that they should be given legislative monopoly over the implementation of this document. My answer to question No. 1 is most definitely yes. Buildings of importance to the public should have the artistic input of architects who are trained and experienced. The concept of public good, I think, demands no less and the marketplace concurs. But there needs to be a separate debate about that; that is not the issue on the table in front of us. What is here is a turf dispute.

In spite of what the architects' association may say, this is a turf dispute. In spite of what you hear, this dispute is not about compromising the safety of the public. Having professionals other than architects read and administer the Building Code does not endanger the public safety at all. * (18:50) Upon reading the judgment of Justice McCawley, it is clear that this dispute is about the Building Code. It is about this document and its implementation. This is not a dispute about building style or building suitability for its intended purpose.

It is not about the colour of the brick or the shape of the roofline. So what is it about? It is about one

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 group claiming to be the sole defender of public safety, as embodied in the National Building Code. This dispute is about the unintended consequences of The Architects Act as it was drafted some time ago, in a different era, when the norm of the day was to have an architect's office produce all aspects of a building's design, including structural, mechanical, electrical components, using in-house staff. This is no longer the case. The current configuration of the building design industry is significantly different.

The engineering disciplines have become more technically complex and specialized. Many architects are small one- person firms who retain engineering expertise on a project-by-project basis. The availability of independent engineering offices has allowed smaller architectural offices to exist today. They would not have been able to have done that in the past. The writers of that act did not foresee the rise of a business model whereby independent engineering firms would successfully provide engineering design services directly to owners, contractors, developers, independent of architects.

So my answer to my second question is a definite no, but why is the answer no? It is because the Building Code is written to be understandable by any and all participants in the building industry. It is not intended to be so complex a document that only professionals with specialized training and experience can understand and apply it. In fact, with the new 2005 code, inclusion of intent statements makes this code even more accessible. No one should be given the exclusive right to a public document such as the National Building Code.

The solution of this problem must account for the uncertainty that we do not know what shape the future design industry will take. Regulations put into place today will not be appropriate for the changing market conditions that are coming. We do not have the ability to predict the future, other than to say that it will not be the same as today. The only appropriate approach is to leave the industry completely unregulated, exposed to market forces. It is these forces that will decide what role each of us plays in this industry.

It is market forces that will keep this industry sharp, keep it focussed and keep it challenged. An industry that is protected from the rough-and-tumble of the market is no different than one isolated behind tariff barriers. Imagination in progressive design can only grow where there is challenge and struggle. This is what I would like to see. I would like to see the committee and the bill acknowledge that the design marketplace has changed and will change continuously towards methods that reduce cost and increase value to building owners.

I would like the committee to acknowledge that public safety is an integral part of the consensus-based code development process. Having engineers implementing the Building Code in no way compromises public safety. I would like to see the committee and the bill avoid implementing regulations based on building classification, on Building Code part, on building size or any other artificial schedule, since these are, indeed, artificial divisions that cannot account for the diversity that we see in this construction industry. Any form of regulatory

schedule will extend the ongoing battle and will create cloistered environments that will be unresponsive to market forces. Isolation from market forces is a sure path to mediocrity. So I would like to see this bill set aside. As it is written, it is not a workable long-term solution. This bill appears to be a stopgap measure that will only add to the confusion and set the stage for a prolonged dispute. The all-Canadian concept of adjusting things until everyone is equally unhappy is really not a good way to measure the success of this legislation.

The other thing that I would like to see is that the government take steps to temporarily lift the injunction imposed by Justice McCawley, so that the building industry can continue to work. I would also like to see it put in place a combined task group that is charged with creating a working environment where all concerned are exposed to and responsive to the market forces of this industry. Rethink it, rewrite it and reintroduce it at some future date, is what I would like to see. Mr.

Gerrard: Now, one of the things that you said early on was that buildings of importance to the public should have the artistic input of architects. Part of what this bill tries to do is to sort of say what architects should do and what engineers should do. How do you say what buildings are important to the public or where do you go if you do not go in the direction of a clearer definition of what engineers and architects do? Help us out. Mr. Stasynec: Well, what I would suggest we do is leave it open for the market to decide.

If you as a building owner wish to choose to have an engineer design your building, so be it. If you understand the importance of architecture in our society and if it is a significant building to you, then I cannot see you

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 going to an engineer to do that. I have seen buildings designed by engineers, and there is a certain– Madam Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Stasynec, I want to advise people in the room that we cannot have public participation in the process. Mr. Stasynec: Right. But what I would like to say is that I have also seen buildings designed by architects that are hideous, absolutely hideous, so I do not think membership in one organization or another gives you, somehow, unqualified rein to do good work.

Again, the only rational way that I can see this resolved is let the marketplace decide. Let the building owner, let the person who is putting his money on the table, in the ground, decide whether he wants to have an architect and the artistic input from that as opposed to the mech anical things that we see from engineers. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no other questions, the committee thanks you for your presentation. The next presenter is Mr. Garland Laliberte, Dean Emeritus, F aculty of Engineering, University of Winnipeg. You may proceed, Mr. Laliberte. Mr.

Garland Laliberte (Dean Emeritus, Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba): Thank you, Minister Allan, honourable members of the Legislature, legislative staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Garland Laliberte. I am here as Dean Emeritus of the Facult y of Engineering at the University of Manitoba. During my career at the university, I had the honour of serving for a year as the president of the Association of Professional Engineers of Manitoba.

I also served for a year as president of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, which is the umbrella and co-ordinating body for engineering in all of Canada, and I chaired the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board for a year and, during six years of service on the accreditation board, I was a member of no less that 10 accreditation teams visiting schools of engineering in Canada, the purpose of which was to assure the quality of engineering education in Canada.

In all of these roles, assuring the quality of engineering practice for the benefit of the public in Canada was either the immediate or the ultimate objective. I have a deep respect for the professionalism of those individuals practising both engineering and architecture. Engineers have compromised such that architects will be required on more projects under Bill 7 than under the previous building code but, even so, and as an engineer, I speak in favour of Bill 7 as it is because, despite some of my concerns, it addresses a number of issues positively.

The positives of Bill 7 as I see them are: the Manitoba Building Code is strengthened and given primacy; safety is ensured; the joint board is strengthened appropriately; grandfathering of engineers, a tool successfully used by many professions in the process of their ongoing development, is accommodated; mutual professional exemptions, which follows on similar success in other jurisdictions, are a hallmark of the legislative framework under Bill 7; allowing modern ownership structures, such that no sub-group of professionals is unfairly prejudiced or favoured in future organi- zations or evaluations of their practice, a strong feature of Bill 7. * (19:00) Other speakers will address these points in greater detail.

In addition, Dave Ennis, Executive Director of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, will address points in a media release that I believe you now have a copy of. In the written material that I presented to you, I have depicted architecture and engineering simply with two circles. The circles overlap. There is a part of engineering that overla ps with architecture and vice versa. It is a concept that has been recognized across this country.

A fundamental characteristic in jurisdictions across Canada where the scopes of practices of architects and engineers do not become an issue is an acceptance by both professions of the concept of overlapping scopes of practice. In these jurisdictions, both professions accept the pragmatism that competent members of either profession are qualified to practise in the areas of overlap. Acceptance of this principle is manifest in the legislation governing architecture and engineering in every province in Canada except Ontario and Québec, and I beg to differ with the presentation that you heard from Mr.

Hobbs on that point. In 10 of 12 jurisdictions in Canada, the concept is realized through mutual exemption clauses in the acts governing the practice of the two professions that allow for either architects or engineers or both to practise harmoniously in the areas of overlapping scope. The difficulties in Manitoba arise from the

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 fact that only the engineers have accepted this principle of overlap.

Acceptance by engineers in Manitoba, and for that matter in most of the rest of Canada, of that principle between engineering and other professions is manifest in an exemption clause, which in Manitoba reads as follows: "Nothing in this act applies to prevent a person who is registered, licensed or certified under, or has otherwise acquired rights pursuant to, any enactment of Manitoba and Canada which licenses, governs or regulates the practice of a profession or the carrying on of an occupation or trade from practising that profession or carrying on that occupation or trade, in accordance with the provisions of such enactment." It is a clause that recognizes mutual expertise in areas of overlap.

It is significant that this exemption clause in The Engineering Act applies to all persons, not just natural persons, all persons. It is significant that it applies to all professions, all occupations and all trades governed by provincial or federal legislation in Canada. The position of the Manitoba Association of Architects and the present legislation which governs the practice of architecture stand in stark contrast to the spirit of pragmatism and co-operation underpinning The Engineers Act.

There is presently no exemption clause in The Architects Act in Manitoba that recognizes and respects the right of other self-governing professions to practise in their areas of competence. Interpreters of The Architects Act in Manitoba are left to infer that architecture is what architects do, a rather open-ended approach in defining scope. Under existing legislation, Manitoba is clearly out of step with the rest of Canada when it comes to its approach to regulating the practice of architecture.

The intransigence of the Manitoba Association of Architects on the principle of overlapping profes- sions and that association's unwillingness to work this out with the engineers over the past several years has been fundamental to a judge's decision, the result of which has delayed or indefinitely deferred construction projects in Manitoba. Manitoba's building boom has been put on hold and an emergency situation has been triggered. Even the advertisement in the weekend newspapers taken out by the architects acknowle dges the delays in the construction industry.

Minister Allan, you and your staff and others in government who have worked on Bill 7 are to be complimented for coming up with a workable solution to this impasse in an amazingly short time. Bill 7 is not a solution that engineers regard as ideal, but it is one with which we can live. Notwithstanding my view that Bill 7 provides a workable framework for the practice of engineering and architecture in Manitoba, I do have some personal reservations about the detailed approach employed in the proposed changes to the legislation.

For example, I feel that a simple exemption clause in The Architects Act, similar to the exemption clause in the engineers act, could have take care of the matter without resorting to the detail that is proposed. Detail in legislation is dangerous in that important requirements may have been overlooked and the absence of additional detail responding to these overlooked requirements may be interpreted in the future as intentional. Detail may also be dependent on related legislation and may require updating more frequently. I much prefer the approach of stating principles in the legislation to be reflected in the

interpretation of that legislation rather than attempting to predict the requirements with detail. I have also some personal concerns about the wording of the grandfathering provision. For me, it goes against the grain that engineers, who for years have been practising engineering competently within the scope of the engineers act, would be charac- terized in the proposed legislation simply as "performing competent architectural work immedi- ately before September 16, 2005," just because that practice is in the area of overlap.

I recognize, however, that such wording may be necessary to make the intent of the legislation perfectly clear to the p ublic, to engineers, to architects and to users of the services of these professions. I understand that time is of the essence, and the building and construction industry must move on. Consequently, and on balance, I wholeheartedly support the intent and the wording of Bill 7. I encourage the enactment of the proposed legislation without amendment to provide a framework within which architects and engineers can work together in harmony for the benefit of all Manitobans. Thank you. Mr.

Gerrard: One of the comments that was earlier was a clearer definition of gross space versus

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 building area. I wonder if you can comment on that as something that would need to be perhaps part of an amendment or is it adequately covered. Mr. Laliberte: I probably cannot speak very intelligently on that. I understand the difference between floor area and proj ected area, footprint in other words, and that needs to be clear, I think, in the legislation. Hon. Nancy Allan (Min ister of Labour and Immigration): I do not have a question. I just have a comment for the Leader of the Liberal Party.

We offered you a briefing on the legislation, and I think, if you would like, we could do that briefing anytime in the next couple of days. It would shed some light on some of the questions that you have been asking that might be helpful. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Laliberte. Our next presenter is Myles Kubinec, private citizen. Hello, you are Mr. Kubinec? Yes. Did you have copies you wanted to circulate. The Clerk will come and get them. You can proceed. Mr. Myles Kubinec (Private Citizen): My name is Myles Kubinec.

I am a professional engineer in regard to mechanical. I am from Holland, Manitoba. I am concerned that Bill 7 does not address the problem of proper supervision or co-ordination of building projects in the most direct way. I agree all projects for the protection of persons, process or property that is impacted should have a designated profession of record. That profession should be competent in the scope and activity of the particular task to be undertaken in the project. * (19:10) I personally have not seen the actual wording of the most important part of the amendment.

It was not released as of Friday when I last checked. I did not get a chance to check again, but on the Building Code, the document that is used in everyday work, from the press release it appeared that the requirements for professional supervision will be based only on the size and type of building. I have recently been involved as a professional of record for a mechanical retrofit of an existing building which included a Class T machinery room. The interests of the owner, workers and the public were not compromised under my professional supervision.

I do not believe anyone would have been assisted by the involvement of an architect to oversee my function in the project. I have also recently wo rked on a fire protection and water service building for a large condo. I was personally responsible for co-ordinating the work of other professionals and was directly responsible for the design of the fire pump system, which was the main work of the project. The adjacent condo project was supervised, as it should have been, by a competent professional of record, in this case an architect.

On the other hand, the independent fire pump reservoir and building project I was supervising did not have and did not require an architect to make it safer, more functional or cost- effective. I do not believe that the identification of specific case-by-case requirements for designating a specific professional of record for each project is practical or reasonable. To the best of my knowledge, this is not used in other jurisdictions, which I believe was also stated by the dean.

Both professions, architects and engineers, are expected to know their area of competence and to practise their profession within those jurisdictions and limitations. There are engineers that are by virtue of their training and experience generalists and very competent to be in charge of large building planning and construction projects. Other engineers, like myself, know not to engage in large types of projects that are outside of my scope of work and outside of my area of expertise, just as the architects know not to design a mechanical system in the building that is outside of their expertise.

With Bill 7 there are two clauses which I am concerned. One limits or e liminates the engineering input unless it is provided under architectural supervision. I guess, I am not a lawyer, that was the way I read it, so you can correct me if I am incorrect. The other seems to grandfather existing engineers that are practising general supervisory response- bilities at the present time. This grandfathering ignores young engineers who will become competent over the next 10 years of working on significant building projects.

I do believe that giving engineers the same right to serve as supervising professionals that architects have and then rule out relying on the professional integrity of both self-policing organizations to govern practitioners will solve things on the legislative end. Requiring a profession of record, either an engineer or an ar chitect, on every project in

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 the Building Code and thus enforcing the requirement should solve all safety concerns, issues. That is basically all I was going to say. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Kubinec. Any questions? Mr. Gerrard: Just, you had a concern about the grandfathering of engineers. Could you just explain that a little bit more? Mr.

Kubinec: The concern I had is that by grandfathering engineers, with all professions, there is this grey area where you are not competent enough to know what you are doing but then, you know, you get to a point to where all of a sudden everybody feels that you are competent. Doctors have that, you know. By putting a grandfathering clause, basically I feel that you are acknow ledging that there are engineers that do know what they are doing and they have gotten to a certain stage but, for whatever reason, there is never going to be any more.

Being my age, and I am not saying it would ever be me because I do not feel, as a mechanical engineer, that I have got generalist training, but there are young agricultural engineers that I work with every day that do have generalist training and a foundation to become a generalist in the future. I feel that grandfathering that would basically be saying that they can never actually get to that point. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no other questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Kubinec. Our next presenter is Robert Hamlin, a private citizen.

Did you have copies you wanted to distribute, Mr. Hamlin? Mr. Robert Hamlin (Private Citizen): No, I just have a verbal presentation. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed, Mr. Hamlin. Mr. Hamlin: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Minister Allan and honourable members. I am Bob Hamlin. I am a professional engineer and I graduated in 1964. I have worked in several companies in Alberta, Atomic Energy Canada, and of more recent, Manitoba Hydro. I chaired a national committee of the Canadian Electrical Association for three years.

I have some experience in the co-operation required in the various disciplines in an organization and across the country. I had a staff as many as 100 and retired supervising a staff of 50. One of the things that has happened, which has not surprised anybody, is the complexity of the buildings and things that have changed since The Architects Act was written. This has become so important in all aspects whether it is building envelope, the aesthetics of the building. To have one discipline only being in charge of it I think is very, very difficult to do.

I do not think they have the ability to cover the whole range of it. So what I see is that we need more co-operation between all factions. It has been the working arrangement in the last many decades between the engineers and the architects. If that would be allowed to continue, then we would not be at this impasse. We would not have to come back to the legislation to get it changed.

What I see in the legislation is that the authorities having jurisdiction being strengthened, that would be a good thing because that would allow the bringing together and deciding where a scope of practice should be between the engineers and the architects. What I have seen in disciplines between engineering and certified technicians and tech- nologists, for example, is, again, there is the overlap between the two. I have seen them work out amicably in an organization this working relation, what the engineers do, what the technicians do, and we have done that with the architects. We need to continue to do that.

It becomes even more important. One thing, the Manitoba Building Code, it is good to see that that is the main driver between all of the work that is done in buildings. What we would like to see from an engineering point of view is reciprocity between The Architects Act and The Engineering Act. In conclusion, the legislation is not perfect and the previous mechanisms did work, and we now have some legislation that will allow that to continue. It is important to the provincial economy and it should be passed quickly.

Co-operation is needed to be re- established to get on with the work at hand and to continue to build the economy that is gathering a momentum that we have not seen in many years. I really urge the legislators to get on with it. It will help us. It has got fa r-ranging suppor t, this legislation, and it deserves speedy passage. Public safety should never be compromised, and I think that would be true. However, it should not be determined the sole purview of a particular group of

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 professionals. It should be done in co-operation with them. Thank you. * (19:20) Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there questions? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hamlin. The next presenter is Duane Joyce, private citizen. I call again, Mr. Duane Joyce, private citizen. Seeing that Mr. Joyce is not here, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Our next presenter is Myron Britton, private citizen. Did you have copies you wanted to circulate to the committee? Mr. Myron Britton (Private Citizen): No, ma'am.

Madam Chairperson: No? You can proceed, Mr. Britton. Mr. Britton: I would like to thank the board for the opportunity to speak to you. I am Ron Britton. I am a professional engineer. I am the associate dean of Design Education in the Faculty of Engineering, NSERC design chair or design engineering, past- president of APEGM and a current board member of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. I am here to speak in favour of speedy passage of Bill 7. I believe that professional acts exist to protect the public.

I believe that the Legislature has placed the responsibility on the professions in order to handle the day-to-day practice of each profession. I believe that one of the rights that goes with that responsibility is the right to define one's own profession. I see the current challenge as a challenge to the right of a profession to define itself. As is stands, architects can define one part of what engineers do. If one part of a right is eroded, then the entire right is eroded. This is a complex situation, the circumstances between engineering and architecture.

Understanding, which is what we are attempting to arrive at, which is what the government has been attempting to get the professions to arrive at, is a function of equality. If the two professions are not equal, then the differences will never be resolved. Some specific points with respect to the act as proposed. First and foremost is the exclusion clause. The exclusion clause provides equality. It provides the opportunity for each profession to define itself and to define what it can and cannot do.

I have spent much of my professional life involved in rural buildings, and the first exposure I had to an exclusion clause was in the agronomist act which entitled me to practise engineering in spite of the fact that I am not registered as an agronomist. But I am registered as an engineering and I practised engineering in that particular field. It seems to me that this is basically a very workable process amongst reasonable people. The second point I would like to make relates to the joint board.

Now, back in 1998 when The Engineering Act was enacted and The Architects Act was modified, it was intended as a dispute resolution mechanism. It has a lack of legal equality under the current situation because the professions do not have equality under the current situation. There is also lack of authority in the given situation in the joint board. However, the current proposals will impose some authority and allow this to become a body which can, in fact, resolve disputes. A concern that I have with the proposals is the grandfathering clause for engineers who practise architecture.

I believe that engineers should not and do not practise architecture. I believe that the inclusion of this clause implies that an engineer is doing what he or she should not. Engineers should practise engineering. They should practise engineering under their act as defined by their profession. This clause assumes that they are not practising engineering and, therefore, I find it very difficult to accept. In general, I would suggest that the proposed changes should permit those individuals who are involved in the professions to arrive at a workable solution because it will be based on equality.

I am concerned about the comple xity of some of the clauses, but I can accept that, given that the complexity is created by those who write laws, as compared to persons like myself who attempt to understand them. The province needs both professions. One profession does not supersede the other. They must work together. It is a complex relationship, but I believe that the exclusion clause in the joint board gives us a sufficient base on which to start to resolve the differences between the two professions. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions from the committee?

Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation.

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 The next presenter is Lawrence Homenko, private citizen. Yes, we are at No. 150, for committee members, on page 13. You can proceed, Mr. Homenko. Mr. Lawrence Homenko (Private Citizen): Good evening, Minister Allan, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen. I am a certified engineering technologist and a graduate of Red River College. I own Homenko Builders Inc., a design-build contracting company, and manage Custom Precast Limited, an associated company which manufactures structural pre-cast concrete building components.

We are certified by the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Welding Bureau. We provide design-build solutions to buildings in Manitoba, northwestern Ontario and the United States, specifically North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. During the past 25 years, we have worked on over 400 projects, of which less than 20 involved an architect. The balance of the projects, 380-plus, were designed by the clients, our company and a professional engineer in accordance with the Building Code. For all of these projects, building permits were obtained and, upon completion, occupancy permits were issued.

All of the owners were pleased with our choice of building materials, the products supplied, design employed and the design team to bring the project to a successful completion. Due to time constraints, we are including a list of two of our largest clients which are owned by Winnipeg families residing in Winnipeg. Sun-X Properties is the largest developer of office/warehouse space in the city, followed by Terracon Developments. A random sampling of the tenants are listed below.

For Sun-X, DHL/Loomis, Siemens, Convergys, Grand & Toy, New Flyer, Color Ad Packaging, Day & Ross, SLH-Sears Long Haul, Sun-X Business Centre, which many of you may recall was the old Labatt's site before they took down the brewery. We did the entire block, Westburne Electric, Warehouse One, Province of Manitoba, I believe that is the purchasing department for all of Manitoba, Corporate Express, Sleep Country Canada and Frito Lay/Pepsi.

For the ones for Te rracon Developments, Terracon Business Park and Tuxedo Business Park, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Manitoba Tissue Bank, Coca-Cola, 3M Canada Company, Maple Leaf Foods, Trans Canada Pipelines Ltd., Panasonic Canada, Manitoba Pork Council Executive Offices, Manitoba Chicken Producers Executive Offices, Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Ridley Inc., Rothman Benson & Hedges, Chubb Security, Acklands-Granger, ACS Public Sector Solutions. Medical industry, Surgipath Canada, Stevens Company, Brathwaites Ontario, Canada Drugs.

A pattern is readily discernible by the number of repeat customers that keep us in business. The obvious assumption is that we must be providing a very good service for our clients. I was going to end here, thank the minister and honourable members for a fairly balanced, compromised and speedy resolution to the problem at hand and proclaim my support for Bill 7 when, on Saturday, I read an advertisement the architects placed in the Free Press, and I just had to speak further on the issue. I have the ad included with my presentation for your information. If you look to the back it is folded in there.

I have highlighted some of the points I will be speaking on. * (19:30) When I read the ad, I felt my blood pressure rising and that is definitely not a good thing. I do not have the time to go into great detail concerning all that is wrong or misleading with their argument, but I have highlighted several words in that ad that I will address. First and foremost, the entire ad is a generalization of vague terms designed to sway opinion or cause doubt in the mind of a layperson that is not conversant with the building permit process and the Manitoba Building Code.

The amendments as proposed in Bill 7 could not possibly lower the safety and functional standards of buildings, because that would mean the majority of the buildings we have constructed in the past are either unsafe or poorly functional at best simply due to the lack of an archit ect's seal on the drawings. What does this say about the successful clients we have provided services for? Are they not intelligent enough to determine whether they need the services of an architect or engineer for their projects?

I am quite certain that our clients have not damaged the quality of life for Manitobans by building these types of projects without the services of an architect. While I personally feel that the best and least bureaucratic solution to the problem would have been to simply amend The Architects Act similar to that of The Engineering Act and follow the Manitoba Building Code, I cannot see this happening very

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 quickly. I have two other items here I would like to read, if I could. Engineers are compromising. Under the previous Manitoba Building Code, engineers were successfully completing and supervising a range of projects, working with arch itects as they, the clients and the authorities having jurisdiction considered appropriate. Under Bill 7, architects will be required on more projects than under the previous established protocol.

Some examples are all places of worship, restaurants, arenas with more than 1000 people and any residence, office building or store larger than 600 square metres. Many of these buildings have been designed and constructed successfully in the past without architectural involvement. Another note I made, I would also like to thank Mr.

Hobbs of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada for agreeing with Bill 7 when he pointed out that engineers are responsible for the design of buildings housing equipment, vehicles, et cetera and such, which are typically found in group four of the Building Code and stating architects should be responsible for the people buildings which are classed from A to E in the code. Having said that, I want to thank the minister and her advisors for this timely solution which is a fair compromise, and I fu lly support the speedy passage of Bill 7. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr.

Homenko? No? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Our next presenter is Mr. David Derksen, private citizen. Mr. David Derksen (Private Citizen): Good evening, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson: Did you have copies you wanted to circulate? Mr. Derksen: No. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed, Mr. Derksen. Mr. Derksen: Good evening, Madam Chairperson, Minister Allan, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to speak to Bill 7. My name is David Derksen. I have been in the construction industry for about 22 ye ars.

I currently am the district manager for Robertson Building Systems. In that capacity, I have a close working relationship with many general contractors in the province. Many of these contractors are facing two significant issues right now. One is that they have projects that are ongoing that are on hold. They are in various stages of construction. They have had their permits pulled. They have had occupancy permits denied to their owners on projects that are complete. This needs to be rectified and we see Bill 7 as a reasonable compromise to that situation.

We also look at the future and see that their ability to provide construction services in the future and choosing the appropriate professional services as required also impaired. Bill 7, once again, addresses that to a reasonable extent. The builders I come in contact with take pride in their ability to provide not just construction services but also complete costing and design services to their clients. They need to have the flexibility to choose which professional services are required to meet the needs of each of their clients.

These contractors have always recognized that there is a need for engineering services and architectural services, however not on every project. They have enjoyed the flexibility, up until the recent court ruling, to be able to choose whether there would be an engineer required to supervise their project or an architect to supervise their project. Although Bill 7 does not restore everything to the way that it was before the court ruling, it does bring a measure of compromise and a measure of clarity to the situation. Therefore, I would urge you to pass Bill 7 as it is written into law as quickly as possible.

The construction industry in Manitoba, as I see it, and many of my contractor friends see it, is in a somewhat precarious state. With construction being slowed down and issues being out there in terms of whether or not there is going to be work in the future for many of their trades pe ople, they are noticing ads from B.C., ads from Alberta, saying come work for us. At this time, many have not yet left, but I know that many are consider ing that.

They would appreciate the passing of this bill quickly so that they can continue to work and enjoy the lifestyle that they have here in Manitoba, so they do not have to uproot their families and move them to other jurisdictions. Once again, thank you for recognizing the importance of this issue and your quick work.

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much Mr. Derksen. Are there questions for the presenter? Mr. Gerrard: Maybe you can just give us a little bit more detail on how many buildings that you are aware of are being delayed or deferred. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard, I am sorry. I do not think we could catch the question back here. If you could just speak in the mike. Mr. Gerrard: The question was, I was just asking for a little more detail on how many buildings have been delayed or deferred in your experience. Mr.

Derksen: It is somewhat anecdotal in terms of the numbers, but I am aware of about 10 right now that I have been involved with that are somewhat on hold or in limbo. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Our next presenter is Ellen Kotula, private citizen. While we are waiting for Ellen Kotula, I have just received a request from John White for his presentation to be included as a written submission to Bill 7, copies of which have been distributed to committee members.

Does the committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] For the information of the committee members, Mr. White is No. 62 on your list. Once again, Ellen Kotula, private citizen. Seeing that Ms. Kotula has not come forward, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Our next presenter from out of town is Mr. Bruce Wilton, ND Lea Engineering. Once again, Mr. Bruce Wilton, ND Lea Engineers? One last time. Seeing that Mr. Wilton is not here, we will have his name dropped to the bottom of the list. Calling Mr.

Phillip Dorn, private citizen. Once again, calling Mr. Phillip Dorn, private citizen. Mr. Dorn will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Aynslee Hurdal, private citizen, 185. I am on page 15, for the information of the committee members. Madam Chairperson: Hello, Ms. Hurdal. Did you have a presentation you wanted to circulate to committee members? Ms. Aynslee Hurdal (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed. * (19:40) Ms. Hurdal: Thank you. Hi, I am a student at the University of Manitoba. I am studying architecture there.

I have been studying there for six years and it takes six years of studies to become an architect. I will be graduating next year, upon which I need to spend another three years to become an architect that can get a seal. So we go through nine years of education in order to become an architect and I feel that if this bill goes through, my partner and I–and my partner is in law school; he will be graduating next year–are probably going to have to leave the province that I have strong ties to. I love this province.

It is sad that two educated people who have strong ties to this province will probably have to leave because I do not see the building industry, in terms of architecture, growing due to this bill. I think it will, in fact, inhibit the growth of building and that is all I have to say. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions for Ms. Hurdal? Seeing no questions we thank you very much for your presentation. The committee calls Roger Wilson from Fox Warren Ethanol Agency. Once again for Roger Wilson, Fox Warren Ethanol Agency. One last time for Roger Wilson, Fox Warren Ethanol Agency. Mr.

Wilson will be dropped to the bottom of the list. The committee will now move on to people who are from Winnipeg or close proximity. The committee now calls the first person registered, Don Oliver, private citizen. You can proceed Mr. Oliver. Mr. Don Oliver (Private Citizen): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, honourable Minister Allan and members of the Legislative Assembly. My name is Don Oliver. I am a registered architect in the province of Manitoba and I have been registered since 1989. I have been active in my association on various committees.

I have been on council for six years and, two years ago, I was the acting president of the association. I am the founding member of a small architectural practice based in

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 Winnipeg, doing most of our work in rural and northern Manitoba and northern Ontario. Over the last few years, there have been many attempts to have The Architects Act recognized by the authorities having jurisdiction in this province, some with the involvement and some without the involvement of government assistance. Two years ago the Province of Manitoba introduced the retail sales tax on businesses practising a restricted scope of practice.

At the meeting of these stakeholde rs with the Minister of Finance at the time, I stated that the MAA felt it was unfair for its members to have to collect retail sales tax while the office of the Fire Commissioner's office was not recognizing The Architects Act in our restricted scope of practice to design buildings defined by our act. We were assured that this would be addressed, giving our profession some hope.

A year and a half ago, Bill 45, which we all remember was the changes to the engineers and geoscience act, was introduced and in a committee room after the second reading, one of the hardest fought public confrontations between our two professions took place.

We were fortunate that the honourable Minister of Labour, Nancy Allan, saw fit to allow representatives from both of our associations to meet with Legislative Counsel and quickly redraft the offensive parts of that proposed legislation and to come to an agreement that allowed the engineers to get the provisions they needed to continue on and represent their own act.

The consequence of this unfortunate incident was the deflection away from the creating of the directive from the Office of the Fire Commissioner's office and the constricted involvement of both professions in another round of joint board discussions to resolve this jurisdictional issue. The resulting Witty Report and its recommendations were not implemented in spite of assurances that they would be.

In the spring of 2004, the Manitoba Association of Architects decided to act on the increasing trend by non-professionals and contractors to use stamping engineers to circumvent the requirement for an architect on projects, and the City and Province's facilitation of this practice. The MAA initiated an injunctive action against the City of Winnipeg. Bill 7 is the government's response to the September 16, 2005, decision by Justice McCawley on that injunctive action.

So this charge is all part of your package and you can refer to it later, just to give a little bit of guidance about the process here– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Oliver, I have to stop you for a moment. I am sorry. I will ask you to use the information you have in this package. Similar to rules in the House, you are not allowed to use exhibits, so I am sorry, I am going to have to ask you to put that aside. Thank you for your understanding. Mr. Oliver: Like I say, that exhibit is in your package, so you can refer to it.

In that case, the MAA asked the court to decide whether the City of Winnipeg could issue building and occupancy permits based on the building drawings that were prepared and sealed by non-architects, generally speaking, engineers. The City of Winnipeg had been issuing these permits, as had other authorities having jurisdiction. You can see in the chart there that there are actually two milestones in the production of a building where the authority having jurisdiction has some input into the process.

There is the issuance of the construction permit, which happens after the design work and the bidding and tendering is gone, and then there is also the issuance of an occupancy permit, which happens after the construction and prior to occupancy by the building's users. In the City of Winnipeg case, the city's legal counsel argued that it was allowed to decide for itself whether an architect or engineer or neither is required on a building. The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba sided with and supported the city's position.

The MAA argued that The Architects Act and the engineering statute, being statutes that are in place for public health and welfare, required that architects be involved in the design, planning and supervision of the construction of certain buildings, and that engineers skilled in the appropriate disciplines, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engi neering were required for the design of the building's structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and that the City and other authorities having jurisdiction could not issue building and occupancy permits unless both professions were involved, each in their own area of professional expertise.

The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Manitoba Association of Architects. When the decision came down, the government initially

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 panicked. What about the buildings that were in the process of being built? What about the buildings that the authorities having jurisdiction had issued permits for that did not have architects, even though the law now said they required one? These are practical problems, but they are not insurmountable ones. The government, under pressure by several special interest groups, bought into the fabricated aura that this was a crisis situation. Was there a crisis?

The Manitoba Associ ation of Architects does not believe that there is one, and the lack of action by the Office of the Fire Commissioner's office has delayed progress on what should have been a temporary situation. * (19:50) Within days of the court's decision, the MAA and the City of Winnipeg discussed the ramifications of the ruling, what was needed to be done and how the MAA could help. Today, we are told directly from the City's department head that there is no backlog at the City of Winnipeg's permit department, the largest authority having jurisdiction in the province.

What about the other authorities having jurisdiction? The Office of the Fire Commissioner has not issued directives on how to deal with the court ruling, and many municipalities are still operating business as usual. There is no appearance to be a crisis. Any buildings that are in-between the building permit and the occupancy permit stage can be dealt with very easily. Bill 7 is a response; it is not a solution. The solution is needed. Bill 7 creates more problems than purports to solve. My architectural colleagues will be speaking on the specifics of these problems.

If government feels that the City of Winnipeg case requires immediate action, rushing through Bill 7 is not the solution. Bill 7 is a hasty and devastating response to the situation. We feel that the simple and direct solution to the perceived time crisis that we are faced at is for the court to be asked to vary the order, which is to suspend it while the government addresses the situation and develops a responsible considered solution. Taking this action will buy the government time with no adverse economic consequences.

I ask the mi nister and this committee to delay the third reading of Bill 7 until all of us are able to properly evaluate and amend the devastating articles. Bill 7 is not in the best interest of Manitobans. My colleagues will be speaking to you later on this evening and tomorrow about the problems inherent in Bill 7. I support the concerns that they have and agree with their proposed solutions to achieve good, sound legislation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions? Mr. Gerrard: I am puzzled because we have been hearing that there is a big backlog of permits, and you say that there is not?

I mean, this seems to contradict what we are being told from other sources. Mr. Oliver: The indication from the City of Winnipeg is that because they have been dealing with the problem with the backlog since the ruling, which came out on September 16, most of the problems they have had with projects that were stalled have made their way through. Immediately after the ruling, the City took the stance of informing each of the permit holders of what they felt were the requirements to go forward.

Projects that were in the process of being built were just asked to get an architect involved to review the project for supervision as it went through. They stopped the projects being applied for a building permit until, once again, they had an architect involved, which met the ruling from Justice McCawley. Mr. Schuler: Don, thank you very much for coming to committee and making your presentation. We met on the 17th of this month, and I am a little bit confused. I thought there were three areas where you had specific issues with the legislation and, from what I see today, you just do not like the bill at all.

Has your association shifted its position? Now you are at the point where you do not want the legislation to proceed at all? Can this legislation be amended like we had discussed a couple of days ago, that some changes be made to it and it might be agreeable to you or no? You have now looked at it again, and this legislation has to be put on hold? Maybe I misunderstood you when we met on Thursday or Friday of last week. Mr. Oliver: Our position has been right now that we would prefer that the bill be put on hold to give the parties a chance to develop good legislation.

There are some intents in this legislation that are very, very good, things that straighten out and get us in line with the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions in North America. But there are also other parts of the legislation that are devastating, and it cannot be fixed with a few word tweakings. There are whole blocks of it that must be reworked. Grandfathering, well,

22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 you will get into that a little bit later when I am the first speaker which talked about delaying the bill, giving us time to do it properly. Other speakers that you will hear tonight and tomorrow will be articulating each of the concerns as part of their presentation. Okay. So there are a number of concerns.

The biggest one we feel is the easiest fix is to have the injunctive action addressed in the courts, taking any sort of pressure that the government feels that they have because of the projects that are being stalled, and then deal with the act properly and achieve the good legislation that we all need. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. There has been a request from two of our presenters to have their positions switched, that is from No. 3, Gerry Semerak, and from No. 135, Mr. Robert Eastwood.

This is at their request, so I am asking if there is agreement? [Agreed] Thank you very much. Our next presenter is Vince Kwiatkowski, a private citizen. You can proceed, Mr. Kwiatkowski. Mr. Vince Kwiatkowski (Private Citizen): Kwiatkowski, that was close. I want to thank Minister Allan and the members of the Legislative Assembly for letting me speak tonight as a private citizen. For the record I would like it noted that I have a degree of a Master of Architecture, and I am in good standing with the Manitoba Association of Architects. I have been practising for 23 years in the province of Manitoba.

I am not going to go into detail in Bill 7, but I would like it noted that I am in support of the position of my colleague Don Oliver, and call upon the minister and this committee to delay Bill 7 from proceeding to third reading until all discussions are heard. I will be reading from a letter forwarded to Raymond Wan Architects by Creswin Properties, who is a client of his. Creswin Properties is owned by the Asper family. Any of the articles and concerns of Bill 7 will be presented in time by the joint board representatives and the members of the MAA association.

I prefer that they would speak, and they will be answering a lot of the issues to Bill 7. Proceeding along from the letter, the letter is dated from the client November 20, 2005, and it is to whom it may concern. It is from Dan Edwards and it is cc to Raymond S. C. Wan. The subject is The Architect Act modifications. In reading, "I am writing to express my view and offer my support to the Architects of Manitoba, with regard to the above noted subject.

I have been involved in the development, acquisition and management of residential, commercial, retail and commercial office real estate for in excess of 25 years at the local, national and international level." Second paragraph, "During my career, I have worked with companies that did not see the need for architects and with companies that absolutely insisted that an architect be part of the project team, usually in a leadership or team management role.

Where an architect was involved, almost without exception, at some point in the life of the real estate a situation would occur where an architect would be hired, or should have been hired. "On projects where an architect was involved, the finished project typically demonstrates the value brought forth to the project on many levels such as design, safety, cost and sustainability. "Notwithstanding the above, this memorandum should in no way be interpreted as diminishing the value or need for engineers.

No successful project is concluded without the involvement of the appropriate engineers, whether it is electrical, mechanical, structural, geotechnical, etc. Each project is different and the appropriate professionals need to be involved to ensure the quality, safety and longevity of the project, regardless of the nature of the engagement. * (20:00) "In closing, I would like to stress that I feel the current nature of the industry is extremely successful, that the current legislation is workable and when things are not broken, they should not be fixed. "Regards: Daniel R.

Edwards, President and CEO, Creswin Properties Ltd." Madam Chairperson: Are there questions for the presenter? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Kwiatkowski: Thank you very much for your time. Madam Chairperson: Our next presenter is Robert Eastwood, private citizen. You can proceed, Mr. Eastwood.

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 Mr. Robert Eastwood (Private Citizen): My name is Robert Eastwood. I am speaking as a private citizen. I am speaking as an architect. I am a principal of one of the larger firms in the city of Winnipeg, Number Ten Architectural Group, and I have been in practice in th is industry for over 30 years. I am also involved, not only within the province, but across the count ry. I am registered in five provinces, and we do work internationally.

As part of my concern related to the current act and process, I have attempted to talk with a number of principal businesses within the province, both architectural and engineering, about the nature of the process and the wording of the current bill. I have attempted, in concert with them, to put together a joint statement in a general way, which is what this brief statement outlines that I have been in discussion with these firms on. I have been given permission to speak briefly on behalf of those firms to present some of the issues that we have in mind.

We really want to deliver the message that our collective industries are affected by the proposed legislative change. Our industries, the ones that I have spoken to over the last number of days, employ approximately 350 professionals, technologists, planners and related staff in the architectural, engineering and planning industry in Winnipeg and Manitoba, and a significant greater number across Canada. Our collective work is, as I have said, across Canada, around the world. Our collective businesses represent scores of year s working together as architects and engineers in the design of buildings.

As industry members, we are truly focussed on the building industry versus other aspects of the industry. Our companies represent, probably, close to 50 percent of the professionals and staff involved in the design of buildings in Winnipeg. We understand that the bill is a required mechanism to assist in giving clarity to the authorities having jurisdiction on this process. However, as a group of architects and engineers, we want to stress that the proposed legislation is too important to rush. We mutually recognize the importance of the suggested legislation to both of our professions.

More importantly, we recognize that the public benefits from the collaborations and skills of both professions, and what they bring to a project is significant. We want legislators and authorities having jurisdiction to recognize those skills and benefits when they addre ss issues of act or code changes. We cannot speak to the resolution of specific language required within the act, but, primarily what we want to speak to is our concerns about a lack of clarity related to the proposed bill.

Those concerns include a couple of areas: how the proposed scope of work is governed; how grandfathered professionals are licensed or reviewed; and how authorities will make judgment about when to include professionals in alteration projects. As I mentioned, what our concerns are, primarily related to the current bill, is clarity. It is important that both of our professional associations maintain a role in the

interpretation, scope definition and licensing of professions in our province and in our industry. It appears that the proposed legislation suggests that the issue of scope definition will be governed by a public board operating outside of both the professional associations and their acts for some areas of building and construction.

In order to provide clarity to authorities having jurisdiction and regulatory boards and municipalities, it is necessary that changes in regulations be appropriately reflected either in the bill–and it is our understanding the bill currently does not reference those adjustments–or in the professional acts in order to ensure continuity and stability, both through the professions and to the authorities, and that the professional acts of both associations are respected and not significantly modified or compromised by legislation.

We understand that both associations in previous discussions, and is reflected in one of the schedules in the outline bill, had agreed to recommendations related to areas that have been of previous concern, such as the recognitio n of engineers' sole involvement in industrial projects, and we recognize that effort in the discussions to date. There are areas, we believe, that clarity is still required, such as multiple occupancy projects within that sector, and that clarity will benefit professionals, builders and authorities.

In the second item, under grandfathering, it appears that the grandfathered professionals under the bill will be working outside the direct authority of APEGM or the MAA, at least that appears to us the way we read the current language, even though those two bodies are the ones empowered to grant professional licences. The ce rtificate is suggested to be issued by an intermediary board. It should be

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 recognized that that board does not have the licensing, investigative or regulatory authority in the same manner as the professional bodies. This may also raise concerns about resolution of liability issues for professionals acting outside of educational and professional guidelines of their professional bodies. Again, our issue here is one of clarity for both professions and clarity in the description of issuance of licences or certificates as referenced in the bill. The third item, the proposed

section on alterations, appears to rest all decisions on who is professionally involved in those projects within the authorities having jurisdiction. There is no reference to either the professional acts. The table suggested in item 2.3.1.3(1), or the scale or occupancy of the proposed alteration, and we believe that some reference to those items, again, will provide clarity to the authorities and guidance in terms of their rulings, because it appears to us that they are the ones given authority under that

section to solely rule. There were other workable guidelines nationally. Some of those have been referenced in discussion today, such as the OBC or Ontario Building Code, that may assist or prove workable. As we stated at the beginning, this issue is too important to rush, we believe. We believe that there are areas that need clarity to both professions. We suggest that the wording of the final resolution merits more time.

Our collective working environment and Manitoba as a whole is enriched by the efforts of both professions, and we anticipate that the current draft legislation may create some compromise as to that working environment and our collective efforts to strive for excellence in the living and working environments of Manitoba. That is the brief written statement. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions for Mr. Eastwood? Seeing no questions, we thank you very much for your presentation. The committee now calls Tom Monteyne. You can proceed. * (20:10) Mr. Tom Monteyne (Private Citizen): Yes, thank you.

I am both a registered architect in the province of Manitoba, and have been since 1992, and I am an adjunct professor in the F aculty of Architecture at the University of Manitoba, and have been teaching there continuously since 1994. I have made a submission on the education of architects.

It has a few components here: There is my submission; there is the calendar of courses that architects take at the University of Manitoba; there is the Canadian Architectural Certification Board's guide of student performance criteria; and then there is a little statement in here on the actual tuition fees that students of architecture pay. I guess I want to take you through what architectural education is, to bring up you to speed with the depth and complexity, and also to emphasize that the focus of the education is on the design of buildings.

Our students go through many exercises over the course of actually six years, three years undergraduate and three years graduate education. It focusses on the design of buildings. The point I am trying to make, of course, is that the design of buildings is a specialized occupation and so the education of archit ects has to support this specialization. I have already refe rred to the Canadian Architectural Certification Board. It was formed in 1976 by agreement of all the provinces, quite an amazing feat in this day and age. Hard to imagine all 10 provinces agreeing on something in this day, but it did happen.

What the CACB established was the Canadian education standard. I just want to take you through, I will not go through every last detail of this, but I want to highlight the main areas of education, the first one being human behaviour as it relates to the physical environment in which we function and live. Environmental study, including all aspects of site planning, site analysis, urban planning at a variety of scales from the rural to the urban and the individual building to the scale of the city.

Graphic communication, which, of course, focusses on the various forms of drawing that we use to communicate ideas both to clients and to civic authorities and all kinds of other stakeholders. Building design is probably, as I have already said, the main focus, ranging from simple building projects to complex buildings. The related systems, topics of study such as spatial analysis, design process, and, you can read for yourselves. There are quite a lot of things here. But there is an emphasis.

It is comprehensive, and there is an emphasis not so much on learning how to design every kind of building in the world, but, really, how to design buildings, how to go through the process of researching and learning about the specific program, the specific kind of

November 21, 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 client, and then figuring out how to synthesize all of those things into an actual working building. The next area of emphasis is the building's technical systems, which include structure, environ- mental control systems, mechanical, electrical systems, the things that make buildings work. It is in this area that we tell our students about the roles of the different professionals involved in this. I would say we encourage our students to respect the other disciplines and to learn how to work with them.

And then, finally, the last set of issues is the profession of architecture, which focusses on the ethics of being a professional and your professional conduct. The thing is that the Canadian education standard is geared toward s producing an accredited professional program. The CACB actually admin- isters this program nationally and all schools that are members, and it is all the 10 schools of architecture in Canada and we are affili ated with other schools in North America. Basically, the CACB visits our school on a regular basis and reviews all the work we do. It takes a lot of work for the staff.

We have to put up projects from all our students, and not just the best students. We have to do average students as well, and we show every last thing we are doing in the school. This board, which is made up of registered architects from other provinces and some from United States, and academics, they decide whether we have met the standard and whether our students' work meets the standards. I can tell you from having gone through three of them that it is very stressful, but once it is done and you get your accreditation, you feel very accomplished.

Currently, we are in very good standing, our school here in Manitoba. The other thing I wanted to point out here because we are quite serious about all this, we have a list, or the CACB has created a list of student performance criteria. There are 37 of them, and literally it is a checklist. We have to go through all of them, and our students have to demonstrate their competency in each one of these. And, again, I do not want to necessarily talk about all 37. It is in the handout I gave you, but I just wanted to highlight the areas.

Fundamental design skills: Essentially we want to ensure that all of our students have a basic fundamental level of ability to organize space, to integrate structure and construction systems and basically to be able to take a building program and create a workable building. The second one is human behaviour, and our students have to have awareness of the theories and methods of inquiry that seek to clarify–and I am reading it here–clarify the relationships between human behaviour and the physical environment.

We focus a lot of effort on accessibility which basically means the ability to design both the site and the building to allow for the use and happy inhabitation of people of a range of disabilities. I can tell you that that is a lot more complicated than just following the Building Code. Site conditions: We spend a lot of time, again, learning how to respond to the conditions of a site, the found conditions, whether that is natural or whether it is built.

Building systems: Structur al systems; life-safety systems; building envelope; building service systems; plumbing, mechanical, electrical, vertical transportation, fire protection; building systems integration, which is actually quite an important part of all of this because an actual building is the synthesis of all these things I am listing. I mean, it is possible to study them in isolation, but the real test is to be able to integrate these things into a working building. And the second-last one, Building Code compliance.

We do spend time dealing with the Building Code and making sure our students know how to make their way through it, how to decipher it, how to use it, and how to integrate the needs of that within a working, successful building.

And finally, the last one here, comprehensive design, which is the ability to produce a building project, in other words, a design that could be built, could exist in the real world, and that is informed by a comprehensive program that the student develops from schematic design through the detailed development, integration of all structural and environmental systems, and all these things into a working building. Essentially, this is the final project that all graduate architecture students have to complete successfully to graduate.

I have already touched on the fact that CACB comes and makes sure we are doing this, so we do not just get to say we are doing it, we have to prove it. And so, I guess in conclusion, what I would like to say is that we take the education of architects very seriously. We believe that architects have a serious role and the part we play in the construction of buildings has a very serious impact on society. I think that–it is not in the text, but I would just like to

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 2005 say I think that this bill perhaps unintentionally undermines our role at the university because, essentially, it is going to make it possible for other people who are not trained in the design of buildings or at least not comprehensively trained, tested and certified to design, and so I believe that undermines our educational program. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there questions? Mr. Gerrard: We have heard from others that this bill actually will extend the size or the shape of buildings which will now need an architect compared to before.

Do you want to comment in respect to the concern that this will undermine? * (20:20) Mr. Monteyne: Yes, I believe that subject is going to be handled at great length by other people. I suppose if I am going to tie that comment to what I have just presented about th e education of architects, we certainly do not limit the education of architects to buildings over 600 square metres. We educate them to design small things, even a piece of furniture up to the scale of cities and urban development.

So "scale" in that sense is a legal issue perhaps, but in regard to the education of architects we try to be comprehensive. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our next presenter is Terry Danelley, a private citizen. You may proceed, Mr. Danelley. An Honourable Member: Nice to see you again, Terry. Mr. Terry Danelley (Private Citizen): Nice to see you. It has been a long ti me. I wish we were here under better circumstances. Madam Chairperson: You may proceed, Mr. Danelley. Mr. Danelley: Good evening. I want to thank the minister and the committee for allowing me to speak this evening. My name is Terry Danelley.

I have been a practising architect for 23

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-4-sed1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 4th hansardpdf sed1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	77864aad30beb79755db0ae85e44169d7dfbfb51

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