Legislative Assembly of Ontario

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1998

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, 1998

CONTENTS

Wednesday 2 December 1998

Town of Richmond Hill Act, Bill Pr23, Mr Klees

Mr Frank Klees, MPP

Town of Richmond Hill

Ms Teresa Kowalishin

Mr George Duncan

Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians

and Technologists Act, 1998, Bill Pr25, Mr Baird

Mr John R. Baird, MPP

Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists

Mr Bruce Wells

Mr Angelo Innocente

Ms Margaret Nelligan

Mr Stephen Fram

Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario

Mr Peter Adams

Mr David Hornblow

Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario

Mr Walter Bilanski

Ms Laurie MacDonald

Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario

Mr Brian Hay

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel

Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, December 2, 1998. We are considering two private bills: Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill, and then after that one, Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

Traditionally, once committee members are making comments or questions, we circulate -- Liberal, NDP and Conservative -- and we try and move that along vigorously.

It's also my pleasure to introduce Anne Stokes, clerk, who has just joined this committee. This will be Anne's first morning of business.

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1998

Consideration of Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Chair: I would ask the sponsor and the applicants to approach the witness table for our first bill, Bill Pr23. The sponsor for this bill is MPP Frank Klees, York-Mackenzie. Frank, if you would introduce your applicants, and you may wish to make some brief remarks.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to do so. With me today are Teresa Kowalishin, town solicitor for the town of Richmond Hill, and Mr George Duncan, who is the heritage coordinator for the town.

I'm pleased to say to you, that I have read every word of this bill and can recommend it highly to the committee. I am sure that there will be some tough questions for Ms Kowalishin and Mr Duncan. However, they will now explain the purpose of the bill to you. I look forward to a speedy passage of this bill by this committee.

Ms Teresa Kowalishin: Preliminary to turning to the bill itself, let me just say that the town of Richmond Hill this year is celebrating its 125th anniversary as an incorporated municipality. The significance of that for today's submission by us is really this: We have a number of very historic -- some designated -- buildings within the original village of the town itself, which runs along Yonge Street north of Major Mackenzie Drive for approximately one kilometre, together within the surrounding original farm community, now under residential development, comprising a number of farmhouses of vintage of well over 100 years. In fact, Richmond Hill has an inventory of 400 buildings of architectural and historic interest which have been well-documented and carefully scrutinized. The compendium in support of this bill would have indicated to you that of these properties, 31 are historically designated under the existing Ontario Heritage Act. In fact that number, as of November 4, is 38.

The point is, the building inventory, by virtue of the original village of Richmond Hill having had this long, illustrious history, comprises both residential and non-residential buildings. The glitch, if you will, in the existing Ontario Heritage Act is this: Where a building is designated, as many of ours are, and an owner wishes thereafter to demolish or alter the building without the municipal council's consent, if withheld, then a period of a mere 180 days needs to pass -- six months -- before the owner is entitled under the Ontario Heritage Act, as a right, to demolish the building.

The corollary to that, we say, in existing legislation is the Planning Act and the demolition control powers under the Planning Act, which can be triggered even after the expiry of 180 days under the heritage act, so long as the municipality is subject to demolition control, which Richmond Hill is, but also so long as the building in question, which is sought yet to be preserved by way of the demolition control powers, is a residential building, not a non-residential building. In that case, the Planning Act provides that the demolition control powers are such that unless the council consents to the demolition of a residential building or a building permit issues, then the building may be demolished.

What we're trying to achieve in this special legislation is not unique in Ontario, although important in Richmond Hill. You'll see in our compendium the special legislation, which this one word for word emulates, of the city of Toronto, our sister municipalities, if you will, in south York region -- Vaughan and Markham -- London, recently Kitchener and the like.

What it entails is just this: an amendment to the heritage act by which the 180-day period following which an owner can demolish or alter a building without municipal consent has another criterion added to it: that the owner would be entitled to demolish, without council's consent, a designated historic building, residential or non-residential, based on the expiry of 180 days or six months and the issuance of a building permit to replace or change the designated building.

That tracks into the heritage act some of the existing powers only applicable to residential buildings currently under the demolition control powers of the Planning Act. It fills a void for us to protect non-residential buildings which aren't subject to demolition control.

Finally, recently, as an example of our need for this legislation, we were in the position of telling the owner of a designated old farmhouse of considerable heritage and architectural value, who took the position that this farmhouse, though designated, could be demolished, there being six months after a request for demolition, "That may be the case as to the heritage act, but the heritage act is, by its words, subject to the Planning Act and demolition control powers would require you to also obtain a demolition permit and council's consent because this is a residential building."

I'm sorry to be so complex about this. I hope I'm being somewhat simple. The owner didn't respond to our correspondence but, fairly, that owner might have said this to us: "This isn't a residential building. It's a vacant old, historic farmhouse. It was a residential building but it's not capable currently of being so occupied."

That doesn't deprive it, in our view, of historic value. But the confusion that might arise in an owner's mind if one were to say we need a demolition control permit, even though the expiry of the 180 days has occurred under the heritage act, I think can be cured quite readily through this amendment to the heritage act that would make it apparent to the owners of designated residential or non-residential properties that if they wish to proceed without the council's consent and without a heritage easement agreement, they shall obtain a building permit to replace or change the designated building and wait 180 days, so we don't go kind of in a circle between the heritage act and the Planning Act for residential properties.

I have my heritage coordinator here today as well. He is much more briefed on the particulars of the inventory and the specific buildings in Richmond Hill, both designated and on the inventory, that are sought to be protected in this way.

I simply reiterate that legislative counsel has reviewed -- Mr Klees, I'm so obliged -- the wording of the bill. It is in identical language to the special powers preserving heritage buildings in other municipalities.

In Richmond Hill, by virtue of being an original village, 125 years since incorporation only, we simply seek that like protection.

The Chair: Mr Duncan, did you wish to make any comments?

Mr George Duncan: Yes, I'd like to make a couple of comments. I'm very pleased to be here today. I wanted to say first of all that Richmond Hill, according to Statistics Canada, is actually the fastest-growing large municipality in all of Canada. You can imagine that puts tremendous pressure upon our heritage resources when growth is progressing at such an unprecedented rate. We find ourselves constantly scrambling to try and stay ahead of the process, and not always successfully.

Our designated buildings are a cornerstone of our community's character and we feel that under the current legislation we have only limited powers to protect them.

What we are hoping to achieve with the special legislation is to enable us to prevent the creation of speculative vacant lots. In other words, if someone purchases a designated building and then applies for a demolition permit, with no particular plans for the property, in order to create a vacant lot, that creates a hole in the fabric of our municipality that we wouldn't want to see happen. It really is a loss to us to see a building destroyed unless there is a replacement building being put up.

This is one of the other reasons why we feel it's very important to have this additional power and we ask for your consideration for that today.

I certainly would be very happy to answer any specific questions anyone might have on our heritage resources or our preservation practices in the town.

The Chair: At this point I would ask, are there any interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? Seeing none, we now turn to the parliamentary assistant, municipal affairs, MPP Ernie Hardeman, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I would point out, as was pointed out by the delegation before us, that this is not a new bill or not a new type of bill. In fact, the first one was in 1987, when the city of Toronto got identical legislation. This committee dealt with one as recently as 1996 for the city of Kitchener, although the city of Kitchener did have some slightly different parts to the bill, but it was a similar type of legislation: to amend the Ontario Heritage Act for purposes of preserving buildings that did not fall under the residential class under the Planning Act. We appreciate the efforts that the town is making in preserving those historical buildings.

It has been spoken to a number of times that the Ontario Heritage Act is being reviewed and looked at. It has been suggested that upon that review we would make these changes so it would apply to everyone, as opposed to going through the independent process each time. But that not having been done yet, we commend the city of Richmond Hill for coming forward with this proposal.

As the bill was circulated, we have no objections whatsoever to the bill. I would point out that during the process of the circulation there was a request for information from a private individual from Richmond Hill, but since the bill has been concluded, the committee was not informed of them wanting to make any presentation. I have to presume that the bill in its present form was acceptable to all those it was being presented to. Again, the ministry has absolutely no concerns with the bill and we recommend its approval.

The Chair: We now turn to questions or comments from committee members, questions to either the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant, beginning with Mr Leadston.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Just some clarification to Mr Hardeman. You're correct that the city of Kitchener passed, through this committee, similar legislation to deal with heritage properties in their community, and now we have Richmond Hill; perhaps there are others. You indicated that the act will be amended to alleviate the concerns of municipalities so they don't have to go this circuitous route to seek protection for their heritage properties in their municipalities. Is there a time frame when this is to occur? Obviously, this is an expensive undertaking for the municipalities, as it was in the city of Kitchener's case. It was very time-consuming and demanding on the resources of the heritage staff. Is there a time frame, Mr Hardeman?

1020

Mr Hardeman: Mr Chairman, I cannot look into the future, so I don't know whether it will or at what point in time it may be concluded. My understanding is that the ministry is looking at the act to see whether that and a number of other changes may be appropriate. I'm not aware of any timeline as to when that would be completed.

Though we've had a number of applications of this type of bill, particularly in urban centres, to protect the historical nature of what used to be a small village and has now become a large urban centre in the province, the implications of this type of legislation may be different there than it could be in some other parts of the province where there were different circumstances. I think the ministry is looking at whether it is appropriate to put this type of legislation in the Ontario Heritage Act and cover the whole province or whether the most appropriate way to deal with this may very well be, as is presently being done, for those municipalities that require this type of protection to apply for a bill so it fits just their municipality.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I just wanted to make a comment, Mr Chair. We've been through the Red Tape Commission and most members of the Conservative Party certainly agree that we want to save some time now.

We've raised this issue in this committee on a number of occasions. It goes back at least over a period of two years now. I know you, Mr Chair, have made some comments on this occasionally. I think it moves too slowly. We have various municipalities coming before this committee, spending their time, spending a great amount of resources and money to come here and essentially making their point and getting a nod from the provincial government.

I would therefore make the comment to the parliamentary assistant that the turtle hopefully will speed up, and by the time we meet again there certainly should be a recommendation through you, Mr Chair, or through the parliamentary assistant, that it is the will of this committee to ensure that these cases in terms of the heritage act be speeded up. I hope that you will make the recommendation. If not, then this committee should make that recommendation so we can save some time, money and resources.

The Chair: Any further questions?

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I'll direct my questions to the applicant and this coalition. There is an understanding that, with what you're asking, whether council wishes to expedite an approval or not, it cannot do anything prior to 180 days.

Ms Kowalishin: Yes, if I may. This protection, at least from the municipality's perspective really is only triggered in circumstances where the council has refused consent to alter or demolish and no heritage easement agreement has been entered into.

It's in those circumstances where we've not been able to come to terms, although we continue to try, we always try, that the 180-day period and the issuance of a building permit would stand in an owner's way.

Mr Shea: Notwithstanding that, a spectre that always haunts inner cities is the prospect of owners that may become so disillusioned with a process that they may in fact walk away from a property and leave it boarded up, which is not something that either heritage or good planning would want to happen.

Ms Kowalishin: Correct.

Mr Shea: There is a concern about that and I presume you've at least cautioned your council to understand that there is a downside.

Ms Kowalishin: Quite so. Further, I think that the dictum of the Ontario Municipal Board on demolition control appeals to the board, which can be applied for by any property, is germane. What the board has said, and I was on a couple of those cases, is effectively this: However historically valuable the structure of the building in question may be, if it's structurally unsound then it shall be demolished and the demolition permit would, of course, issue. I have advised my council and my heritage adviser of precisely that.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Following up on what you've just said, does the owner of that property have to go to the OMB to get the permit to --

Ms Kowalishin: No. The owner is entitled to do so under the Planning Act, but the owner would also be entitled simply to apply for a demolition permit. The legal advice that would be given to the buildings commissioner receiving that application would be that if a building is so unsafe, for instance, that it cannot even be insured, there's an obligation, quite apart from whatever other value the building has, to issue the demolition permit. Having said that, the owner is nonetheless entitled, should there be a lapse of more than 30 days under the Planning Act from the issuance of demolition permit, to go to the OMB. The OMB's caseload and scheduling are such that the owner could be before the board at a hearing within three to four months. Maybe that's a bit of a time lag.

In a nutshell, there are remedies available to an owner, but there's also a recognition in Richmond Hill as to the fact that demolition permits cannot be withheld in serious cases of unsafe buildings.

Mr Sheehan: I have a problem. Maybe the problem's with my memory, but we've had about a dozen of these in the last couple of years. It seems to me that you've added a new wrinkle to this, that after the 180 days you still have to get a building permit.

Ms Kowalishin: Correct.

Mr Sheehan: I stand to be corrected, but those previous bills we passed didn't have that in, I don't believe.

Interjection: Your memory's wrong.

Ms Kowalishin: They did. The model for this, the prototype bill, is the city of Toronto's 1987 special legislation.

Mr Sheehan: I just didn't recall it. Thank you.

The Chair: Back to Mr Shea for a second question.

Mr Shea: Not a question, Chair; I simply wanted to indicate that it is appropriate to support the bill. There is precedent. I share the concerns other members have expressed that we have repeatedly asked the ministry for some response and advice on these and other legislative changes. I will not hold the current parliamentary assistant totally accountable for this issue; one of his former associates who occupied that position equally lobbied on behalf of this committee, with the same degree of success this parliamentary assistant may have had.

I hope we will see some of the reports we've asked the ministry to bring forward to this committee for consideration: the way to change and expedite some of the process so that municipalities are not required to go through all of these hoops all of the time. At least there might a reporting out on that; it might be helpful. I know the parliamentary assistant is sympathetic with that, given his significant urban experience, or at least municipal experience.

Finally, having heard the caution from my distinguished colleague Mr Klees and knowing he means what he says, that he has read every word, and trying to preclude him proving that, I would hope we might have speedy passage of this, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Mr Klees, did you have a comment or question?

Mr Klees: With your permission, Chair, I'd just like to say that I want to commend the town of Richmond Hill for the work they've done in bringing this forward for the work of the heritage coordinator. Knowing the town as I do, there are some magnificent buildings that deserve to be preserved for future generations. I also would like to add my comments and encourage the ministry to move forward so that other municipalities don't have this same hurdle to overcome. I would ask my colleague Mr Sheehan to add the weight of his Red Tape Commission to that initiative as well. I thank you for the opportunity to be here at this committee and look forward to the endorsement of this bill before you.

Mr Hardeman: I too want to commend the city of Richmond Hill for all the work they've done in putting this act forward. As we hear the comments about how the committee or the government should expedite and move this same thing along more expeditiously for all the province, I'd put forward a caution. Every time one of these bills comes forward it's being brought forward by a municipality to preserve their historical significance, and I fully support that, but I would caution that every time one of these bills gives an ability for a municipality to deal with that, we are taking away certain processes and things people can do with their property today that they no longer will be able to do when the act is passed. So the answer may not be expeditiously to just say, "This is the way it is in all of the province," because that may not positively impact society in general as we had hoped.

1030

Until we find that real answer, I think this is the way to do it. As Mr Klees suggested, when they get to this committee and they are this supportable, we should immediately get on with the vote and pass this into legislation so Richmond Hill can protect their historical identity.

The Chair: I may have a final comment or a question from Mr Shea.

Mr Shea: I've been provoked to the response by the parliamentary assistant. I understand his comments and support them, but he misses the point I raised; that the committee at least would like to see a report from his ministry on the status of a number of requests we have made for the expedition of certain kinds of changes. It would be nice to at least see where we're at, and if the minister does not seem to be favourably disposed to granting the authority we're asking for in some instances, just a simple explanation might help.

There have been a number of incidents over the last three years or more where we've said: "Why are we still doing this? Why is this still in the track? Can we find a way to expedite that?" The parliamentary assistant makes a very reasoned response in this instance, so I don't oppose that on principle. But I think the committee -- and other members have expressed the same concerns -- perhaps might like to see a small briefing note that we could have some discussion of, or at least take some comfort that the ministry is in fact wrestling with these issues, as I'm sure it is. That's all I'm asking.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I just want to see a fair fight, no rabbit-punching between the men. I'd certainly recommend that we get on to dealing with the matter at hand.

Mr Ruprecht: Just a quick response to the parliamentary assistant. All the comments that have taken place on this committee over the years are now funnelled to you, and I think there should be at least a statement from the ministry of what they've done with all the recommendations we've made that came through the Chair. If you're not quite willing to give us a report, I recommend that you at least give us a statement of what happened to all the recommendations that have come before this committee, so it doesn't look like we're one black hole and everything is going into the sack and nothing comes out.

I think it's quite reasonable, when you talk about the Red Tape Commission, that there should be a connection or there should be some kind of a cooperation between the Red Tape Commission and what goes on in this committee so we can save some time and money.

The Chair: Going back to this bill, Bill Pr23, are the members of this committee ready to vote? We will be voting on An Act respecting The Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill, sponsored by MPP Klees.

Looking at the various sections and in keeping with tradition, I wish to collapse the first 10 sections. Shall sections 1 through 10 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Yes.

I wish to thank the applicants and our sponsor and declare the first order of business closed.

Ms Kowalishin: Thank you very much.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT, 1998

Consideration of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

The Chair: We will now deal with Bill Pr25. I ask MPP John Baird, Nepean, sponsor for this bill, and the applicants to approach the witness table. Mr Baird, could you provide introductions and perhaps a brief comment.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Chair and committee members. I'll just speak for a few short moments and then turn it over to representatives of the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

I'll just say one thing at the outset. Our community college system is a tremendous resource in Ontario, and I think the bill before us this morning is an affirmation of the skill sets that so many young people get from our community college system. In my constituency, Algonquin College has a terrific technology program in a whole host of areas. This system has developed over the last 25 or 35 years, and the bill we're going to be discussing this morning represents the qualifications and the standards coming out of that community college system. It's in that light that I'd like to turn it over to representatives of the association.

Mr Bruce Wells: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I'm going to make a couple of very short comments of introduction and then I will introduce our president, Angelo Innocente, to in effect explain what we're doing here.

It's interesting to recognize that in the House today we have a number of representatives of the engineering and applied science design community. I'd like to take just a couple of minutes and indicate to the committee some of the members who are in this room, which I think is quite meaningful and important.

First of all, we have here the president of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, Mr Fred Lougheed. Fred is a CET, a past president of OACETT. Fred represents all the technicians and technologists across Canada and has been doing some very interesting work on behalf of technicians and technologists in Canada at the international level.

Also in the room is Mr Stewart Baxter, the chairman of the Canadian Technology Human Resources Board. Mr Baxter is in charge of the organization that puts together all the standards for technicians and technologists across Canada. He is also the co-chairman of the Professional Engineers Ontario-OACETT joint management board.

In the room as well are representatives of Professional Engineers Ontario. Mr Walter Bilanski, the president, is here; Laurie MacDonald, the registrar and senior staff officer; Mr Ted Wisz, also co-chairman of Professional Engineers Ontario-OACETT joint management board. As well in the room we have representatives of the Ontario Association Of Architects. Brian Watkinson, their executive director, is here. Also here is Arthur Tims, the executive director of the Ontario Association Of Landscape Architects. Brian Hay of the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario is here. The Association of Geoscientists of Ontario is here. I see Dennis Bailey and his people from the Chemical Profession of Ontario.

All of these people are here either to support this legislation or, in some cases, to at least indicate that they are not opposed and to give us best wishes.

1040

I should also pass on the best wishes of the president of the Consulting Engineers of Ontario. As some of you may know, the Construct Canada program is on today. They have a very major program there and he has passed along best wishes. We work very closely with consulting engineers. Indeed, 40% of the membership of the organizations that make up the Consulting Engineers of Ontario are technicians and technologists.

At the table here with me I have Mr Stephen Fram. Stephen, of course, was active in the Attorney General's department, is now retired, and is a consultant to OACETT. Margaret Nelligan is with Aird and Berliss, and Margaret is OACETT's legal counsel. Beside me is Angelo Innocente, our president.

Let me just make the comment that I doubt if you have had this number of representatives in the room supporting an organization, and to a very great extent you have as well in this group a combination of the engineering and design team.

I should also mention another member of that team, the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. Mr David Hornblow and Mr Peter Adams are here. I understand they will not be supporting our legislation.

Before I introduce Mr Innocente, I would like to go on record as thanking Laura Hopkins, of the legislative counsel office, for the work she has done on our behalf. She would tell you she's just doing her job, but I want you to know it's a very professional job and we're appreciative of the work they have done. We're also appreciative of and I want to go on record as thanking the Attorney General's staff for the very quality work they have done with us, not only in relation to this but over the years.

With that, let me introduce the president of OACETT, Mr Angelo Innocente. Angelo, when he's not working for OACETT, is the senior project manager, vice-president, principal and director of MTE Consultants Inc in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. He will talk to you for a few minutes about what we're doing with this legislation.

Mr Angelo Innocente: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Mr John Baird, sponsor of the OACETT Act, 1998, members of the regulations and private bills committee, and ladies and gentlemen.

OACETT: the technology professionals in Ontario. OACETT is a non-profit, self-governing professional association representing some 20,000 engineering and applied science technician and technologist members in Ontario. We have over 557 charter members, most with over 40 years of membership in the association.

OACETT was founded some 41 years ago, in 1957, incorporated in 1962 and, with the active support of the Ministry of the Attorney General, received royal assent in 1984 under the current OACETT Act. This act recognizes OACETT as a professional association whose main objectives are to establish, maintain and enforce high ethical and professional standards and to grant registration, membership and protected titles to such persons who meet the standards of the association. Since 1957, OACETT has certified more than 50,000 members to a consistent, nationally accredited academic standard, achieving national and international recognition and transferability of credentials.

Through our national association, CCTT, the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, protected titles -- CET, CTech and AScT -- are recognized professional designations in the North American free trade agreement, allowing our members access to these markets as qualified and competent professionals.

We are before you today to amend the OACETT Act, 1984, with the new OACETT Act, 1998. Knowing that your time is limited, I will direct my comments to two major areas of change: the description of work and the proposed new title designations.

Why does OACETT want to define a description of work for certified engineering and applied science technicians and technologists?

Many Ontarians lack knowledge and understanding about the engineering team concept and the different role each of the practitioners play in the application of engineering, science and technology. Students considering careers in the technology field are often confused and misdirected about what they want to do, what they can do, what education and training they need, what the role of the community college system is, and, "What professional role can I play in the technology field?"

Employers are equally confused about what type of employee practitioner they really need to perform a certain job, what skills and education they need, and how they can compete on a global perspective.

Many times, this uncertainty leads to underutilization of educated and trained community college graduates, who are qualified and competent individuals who can do the job. Sometimes this uncertainty results in a reliance on individuals who are not fully trained or competent and who may create health and safety concerns because they do not have the education or specific training needed to do the task. Providing a clear definition of work for certified technicians and technologists is an important step towards reducing the ignorance and confusion within the workplace.

If Ontario students, employers and industry are to flourish, they will have to be more knowledgeable and understanding of who does what in the engineering, science and technology fields. These revisions to the act are one step towards that understanding.

For over 40 years, certified technicians and technologists, through their employers or as individual practitioners, have provided competent technological services to the public and industry in accordance with government-accepted practices, codes and standards, or within recognized industry standards, or within an engineering team concept with direction provided by professional experts.

A description of work for engineering and applied science technicians and technologists was developed by the PEO, the professional engineers, and OACETT, our joint management board, and on March 20, 1998, unanimously endorsed the description of work for inclusion into the new OACETT Act you have before you.

Why new professional designations and titles? The primary intent is to identify engineering and applied science technologists who have special training and experience who currently may be restricted from doing such work by legislation, regulation or codes but who may qualify to do certain work under this special designation.

OACETT's original choice for this special designation was professional technologist, the term "PT," a designation currently held by OACETT under trademark certificate from the Intellectual Property Office of Canada. Alternative designations identified in our proposal include the titles PCET, professional certified engineering technologist; and PAScT, professional applied science technologist. These reserved titles would be used in future by qualified and competent members designated by OACETT's registration board, IETO, the Institute of Engineering Technology Ontario.

With over 40 years of experience, OACETT's certified members have taken the challenge and performed with excellence. Members are fully accountable under the OACETT Act, its bylaws, under defined council policy, our code of ethics, rules of professional conduct, a complaints committee, a discipline committee, and with appeal through a discipline appeals committee and of course through the Ontario Court of Justice, the Divisional Court.

Certified technicians and technologists and applied science technologists are qualified, competent and responsible members of the engineering, science and technology teams. OACETT members have a designated membership stamp and access to professional liability insurance. They "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety within the workplace." This is referenced directly in our bylaw 18, section 7.1.3.

1050

As an association, OACETT is confident the definition of work and updates to the protected titles will help Ontario to maintain itself as a world leader in providing competitive and meaningful solutions to the technology needs of society, while assuring responsible and continuing protection of the public.

As a postscript, OACETT would be less than candid if it did not share with you its vision of a much different regulatory system for engineering and applied science design professionals than now exists. In November 1996, OACETT made a presentation to PEO that included a document entitled Towards the Future: Is It Time for a Partnership of the Applied Science and Design Professions Organizations? This document was written to stimulate discussion among the professional associations in the engineering and applied science design fields, to explore with each other, its members and the Ontario government the usefulness and desirability of establishing a partnership of professions formally linked under an umbrella legislation.

The intent of this umbrella legislation will be to regulate and license all design professionals within the engineering, science and technology fields, much as the current Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

Perhaps it's time to consider formally investigating such an umbrella legislation. OACETT is convinced that real protection of the public and efficient utilization of Ontario's educated and trained workforce point to the need for a better form of regulation. We pose this question to the government of Ontario and await some direction from the various ministries.

At this time we are prepared to answer specific questions about our submission.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Innocente.

At this time I would ask if there are any other interested parties who wish to speak to this bill.

Mr Peter Adams: My name is Peter Adams. I am the executive director of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. Frank Monteleone, from Cassels Brock, is our legal counsel. Our president is David Hornblow.

This morning I'd like to begin by simply saying that we commend OACETT for taking the initiative to fully consider its future and also for putting forward many of the points they did this morning about the necessity for all the different professions within the building industry to come together and for legislative change to take place. We have been an active participant in that process and would very much welcome it.

However, this morning we're here to talk about Bill Pr25, specifically the concerns we have for this document and for our membership as a result of this document. I will just draw your attention to the one-page sheet before you, called Overview on Bill Pr25.

Just running down that page, the imprecise legal drafting of the document concerns us somewhat. There are already engineers acts and already an Architects Act in Ontario. By creating a parallel document that will also detail engineering practice in Ontario to the degree that it does, it represents an inefficient attempt at resolving the problem of an area of practice for engineering technologists and, frankly, results in increased red tape.

Additional to this concern of increasing the red tape and certainly paramount is the effect it's going to have in the industry. Down the road, when changes do have to happen, it's another act that has to be brought into the discussion and considered. When the public is looking to figure out how the different professionals in the industry interact, there is a second document now that is going to detail engineering practice. That's a major concern to us. We would certainly caution the committee to take that into account as they move forward with the discussion today.

Additional to this discussion would be the description of work itself, the wording that's contained in it. I'll draw your attention to, in the briefing book we handed out to the committee members, appendix A. That's a letter from the president of OACETT published over a year ago, where he draws on an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Professional Engineers Ontario at the time, where the clear intention was to have a clear description of the work performed by these professionals. The document we have today, Bill Pr25, does not achieve that.

The next area of concern for us is in the titles that are being put forward. OACETT is an engineering association, an engineering technology association, specifically, and the six titles they're putting forward today we feel will add to industry confusion. We don't understand why there is a need to bring forward the certified technician when there is already a certified engineering technician in their list of titles.

Frankly, I don't think it meets the standard of being clear and precise, that what you are is what you do and what you say you do is what you do. We're certainly not opposed to groups reviewing their titles acts. This draws upon the fact that OACETT did have an act passed in 1984.

One of the other quick areas I'd like to touch on is simply the fact that we had very short notice in considering the materials that were given to us. We only received them late last week.

As far as the materials we've presented to you today are concerned, they speak for themselves, and we'd certainly entertain other questions.

Mr David Hornblow: My name is David Hornblow. I am president of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. I am here representing not only as the president of the association but also as a member of the association.

I understand what OACETT was attempting to do with this legislation in terms of clearing up a lot of muddy areas between disciplines and areas of work and things of that nature. Again, I applaud them as well for attempting it. But we feel strongly, and several of my members who have come out to attend today feel strongly, that they haven't done so. In fact, when you look at the area of practice or the description of work, it often describes what an architectural technologist does and is. Again, that relates back to adding further confusion into the industry.

OACETT has mentioned in their own brief to you today that they wish to clear up that ambiguity, that confusion within the industry: who does what. This truly doesn't do that in that respect, and we would certainly love to sit down with OACETT and other groups to start hammering out that aspect of it.

As Peter Adams mentioned, the engineers act and the Architects Act currently describe what is architecture and currently describe what engineering is. Further adding another level, without dealing with those initial two acts, would add more confusion from a legislative point of view, when and if there is the one body that licenses professional designers. As well, it will not lead to any clear resolution of what both our associations face within the industry in terms of who does what and who is capable of doing what.

From the students' aspect of it, students who graduate from an architectural technology or an architectural technician program clearly know that they need to be registered with the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. We've gone to great lengths to communicate with each of the colleges throughout the province of Ontario.

By doing so, we've had access to the students and further discussions with the students. We are one of the few associations that have actually taken the time to put the students on our councils so we can hear their concerns about what is happening today as well as what's happening down the road so that they have active input into as well as discussion of the matter. They have a voting right within the council to do so.

1100

That pretty well sums up what I have to say. I know that many of my members who are in attendance today and many who aren't in attendance today fear what this kind of document will do to their place within the industry as well as how to clarify who they are and what they do, that kind of thing.

I seriously hope that this committee can take a second look at this bill and, if not pass it outright today, at the very least tell our groups to go back and take a look at it and look at proposed amendments that would be agreeable to both sides of the issue.

The Chair: Thank you. Any further comments?

Mr Adams: Just to add that we would welcome an opportunity to consult with the sponsoring group on this bill and on the draft that we just received last week.

The Chair: No further comments? Thank you, Mr Adams and Mr Hornblow. If you wish, you may take your chair again in the audience.

Do we have an additional interested party representing another organization? I'll ask you to please identify yourselves and make some comments.

Mr Walter Bilanski: Good morning, Mr Chair and members of the legislative committee. I'm Walter Bilanski, president of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. It is certainly a privilege to be given the opportunity to address you in this matter. Similarly to the architects, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario regulates the practice of professional engineering in Ontario. Most of our OACETT members work in concert with the professional engineers and in similar areas of practice.

We've had what I would consider an excellent relationship for over 30 years. As a matter of fact, I was on APEO council way back in the early 1960s encouraging OACETT to get organized and get the recognition they deserve. We have a joint management board which resolves problems between the two professions. Literally up until November 19, the professional engineers were in concert with the OACETT representatives. I was instructed to come to this committee and support their request.

However, on November 19 the title had been changed. The word "professional" had been introduced. We did not have time to discuss the matter satisfactorily at our council. The time was so short that we are going to request additional time so that the APEO council can deal with this matter through the committee. We have here with us our registrar and CEO of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, Laurie MacDonald. I would like to have her deal with more of the details of our concerns. In case I do not have the opportunity to speak further other than on this minor aspect, which I consider minor -- that it can be changed, it will be resolved -- we would support the legislation that OACETT is asking for. May I then turn it over to Laurie MacDonald?

Ms Laurie MacDonald: I just echo that we are generally supportive of the proposed amendments, except that we do have some concerns about the title they're proposing to reserve, which is "professional" certified engineering technologists. Our concern is focused on the use of the adjective "professional" in conjunction with the provision of technical services, which are mostly related to engineering. We think there is some potential that this would lead to confusion among the public as to who is authorized to provide professional engineering services, which we regulate through our act and through a legislated scope of practice which is in our act.

That's all we have to say, except the fact that we've had very little time to review this. We only received this title approximately a week ago. We would like to continue our very good relationship with OACETT, and a very good dialogue that goes along with it, and have some time to discuss these things and resolve our concerns with them.

Mr Bilanski: If I may add, if it were possible that we be given extra time to deal with this matter in a satisfactory manner so we can come here hopefully in harmony.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Bilanski, Ms MacDonald.

Are there any additional interested parties who wish to speak to this bill? I'll ask you to identify your organization.

Mr Brian Hay: Mr Chairman, my name is Brian Hay. I work with ARIDO, the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario. I am empowered to speak on their behalf. I'd like to advise you and the members of your committee and the Legislature that ARIDO supports this bill because it supports the philosophy and the direction of this government to reduce the regulatory burden on the people of Ontario.

ARIDO applauds the work of the Red Tape Commission in this regard. ARIDO believes that individuals, professionals and their associations need to accept and, where necessary, be given back more responsibility for their actions and conduct. ARIDO members work with the members of OACETT on a regular basis and find them to be fully professional, in the generic sense of the term, and responsible in the conduct of their business. We agree with them and many others in the field that the life, health and safety of the public are of paramount concern.

ARIDO also believes that the consuming public, the marketplace, deserves clarity among those they hire, when they look in the yellow pages or they seek to hire someone, that there is no misunderstanding as to the status or the qualifications of the people they seek to hire. We believe that the public deserves the quality assurance that a well-run profession can provide whenever they retain or acquire professional services. ARIDO sees this bill as promoting this. We therefore support the bill as it is presented.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hay. Any further interested parties? Seeing none, we now turn to the parliamentary assistant of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, MPP Ernie Hardeman, for comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much. As has been presented very well by all the deputants who spoke to the bill, there are parts of the bill that are very much in the vein of where everyone agrees with it: to recognize the professionalism and the abilities of the members of the organization. The proponents of the bill have circulated it to the ministries and have had discussion with ministries. The Ministry of the Attorney General is the one that deals with the licensing of the engineers and the architects. They have had considerable discussion with the applicants and have come to the conclusion that the bill, the way it is presently before the committee, does not infringe on any of the direction of the province and are not objecting to the bill.

1110

Similarly with circulation within our ministry and other ministries, there are no major concerns with the bill as it relates to the legality of existing professional regulated bodies such as the engineers and the architects. The ministries are not objecting to the bill.

Having said that, there are concerns with some of the wording that is in the bill that the committee may want to have some discussions about. That's not saying that all the concerns that were put forward by the ministries were addressed. They were addressed sufficiently to say that from a functional point of view it will work. The ministry recognized that this is the first time that this type of legislation would define the scope of work for the individuals. In the past, the title bills have been more to deal with just giving the titles than for defining the scope of work. The ministry originally had concerns that this might imply that not only would the bill define the scope of work but it would obligate the title to be the only person who could perform that work. It's quite clear that that's not the case. It defines the scope of work but doesn't restrict that scope of work to the title in the bill.

With that, we have no official comment one way or the other. We're not suggesting that the committee should not approve it. We're just registering no objections from the ministry.

Mr Ruprecht: No objections?

Mr Hardeman: No objections.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. At this point we turn to members of the standing committee for comments or questions to the applicants and to the parliamentary assistant. Mr Ruprecht, do you have a question?

Mr Ruprecht: I do, Chair. I was interested to hear the president of the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, Mr Hornblow -- and I want to clear this up somehow here -- say that he appreciates that you tried to clear up this muddled issue of description of work. I'm not quite sure what else he indicated in terms of a muddled issue, I assume that the muddled issue is only the description of work, but there could be something else in addition to his idea of what else is muddled. I don't know what else could be muddled, and maybe he will speak to it later. My question is to any one of you, and maybe Mr Innocente could answer that. I'm looking at the letter that apparently said: "There's no attempt here to provide an exclusive scope of practice for our members but rather to enact a clear description of work that a certified member of OACETT currently does." My questions to you would be: (1) How would you answer the concern where Mr Hornblow says he agrees that this issue is somewhat muddled and should be cleared up; and (2) how did you resolve between the two of you the issue of clearing up the description of work?

Mr Innocente: Mr Chairman, I'll ask Stephen Fram to answer that question and then I may elaborate further.

Mr Stephen Fram: Mr Ruprecht, the bill only deals with OACETT members and therefore the description of work can only apply to OACETT members, but it doesn't give any special rights to OACETT members. AATO members in fact do, in connection with the design and construction of buildings, many of the exact things that are described about OACETT members, so this is not exclusive. In fact, there are members who are technologists and technicians who are not OACETT members or ARIDO or AATO members who do work within the ambit of this description because the description is in the OACETT act. So it does not confine AATO's work, it does not in any way prevent AATO from using exactly the same definition and it doesn't exclude AATO members from doing exactly the same work. It's just, for the purpose of explaining to a society that doesn't know what technicians and technologists do, that it's the first step in trying to clarify that there is this whole group of people who do work within codes, within standards that are is vital to the work of society.

Mr Innocente: I want to elaborate further, and perhaps you may ask this of legislative counsel: Our understanding is that nothing within our act infringes upon AATO, PEO or any other act or members. In fact, it is not exclusive and you may want to ask that of a legal counsel, but that is the way the act has been drafted.

Mr Ruprecht: If I may just make one more comment, Mr Chair. I would like for you -- probably Mr Hornblow will have a chance later on to respond to this as well, because I'm going to ask him the same thing, unless of course it comes up in discussion. At least to my mind, we have a number of organizations here who all agree that the issue of work and other issues need to be cleared up, and, in present conditions, it is muddled. I think there's consensus with all the organizations that there's a muddled situation out there. You've attempted to clear up the issue of work and other issues that are muddled. Can you explain to this committee, then, where is the deadlock that you cannot go beyond your attempt to unplug this dam of muddling?

Mr Innocente: The definition that we have in the act has been looked at for approximately two years with our counterparts at professional engineers. There are five sitting members from PEO and five sitting members from OACETT who have worked for approximately two years to put together this definition. This was not created over the summer holidays. This was a fair amount of work going into the definition so that it would satisfy professional engineers. It has been distributed widely to the science community, AATO and others. We have not kept this to our chest. This is a definition that has been worked on for a long time. There were some very minor changes that were made by legislative counsel during the summertime and none of those changes changed the intent. As Mr Bilanski indicated, PEO counsel has approved the definitions as their committee has. We think we have worked with other associations and industry to come up with what we consider reasonable definitions for the work of technicians and technologists particularly in the engineering and science community. Those are the members we register.

The Chair: Thank you. I have a question from Mr Hardeman.

Mr Hardeman: First of all, I neglected to mention earlier when I spoke, for the benefit of the committee, that there was a concern expressed by the ministry that since this was the first time that a description of work was included in a title act, that would possibly encourage or promote other title acts to be open to putting that in. The reason I bring that up is that during the previous presentation the committee was talking about trying to get rid of red tape and trying to get rid of the process this committee goes through on these types of hearings, and this in fact would present the possibility of encouraging a lot more of this type of thing. The reason I bring that up relates to my question that when we look at the bill and the description of work being so general and almost totally encompassing, does it really serve a purpose? As a private citizen about to embark upon hiring someone to do something for me, when that individual says, "I have a CET designation," what is it that I'm going to feel comfortable with that now I have hired a person who is very capable of doing that? If I read it from the act, that individual is capable of doing just about anything; they're not necessarily designated to a certain function. The description is so broad that one has to look very carefully to find something in this world that wouldn't be part of the scope of work that would be delegated to that authority.

1120

Mr Innocente: Those are fair questions. I'll answer them one at a time. Certainly the definition will be present in the private member's bill. We feel it's necessary. Certainly people would have more questions trying to understand what certified technicians and technologists and applied science technologists can do. Although the description may be reasonably generic, we register and certify members in 63 individual disciplines, so we cover a very wide range of members and members' skills. Each and every one of them has to go through a certification program. They all have to attain and maintain a national standard level. We take members and we measure them. We make sure they reach and attain a specific standard. So, we're comfortable saying that, as certified members, we can do this broad-based scope of work.

That also means that the individual member who takes on that responsibility will have the responsibility to decide to what level he or she can accommodate and do the work. Certainly we have that barrier now. We have those levels now in the workplace. When it's time to turn it over to a professional engineer, an architect or whatever the case may be, another professional, our members have always done that. We have never found ourselves in a situation where we've stepped out of line. We, as professionals, at least know when we've reached our limit and when it's time to get the help of an engineering team, a science team, an environmental specialist. We work with lawyers, developers and other professionals all the time. So, our members are qualified and competent to know the level at which they can practise.

I think what Bob was trying to show you was that this is just a smidgen of the codes and standards that we work with every day. If I was to bring in all the codes and standards, I would fill this room.

Mr Hardeman: I want to make sure we understand. I'm not trying to suggest that the qualifications are not proper or that the technicians and technologists are not qualified or doing appropriately what they presently do. We're trying to clarify for the public what this discipline looks after. My question is, really, what does adding the scope of work do for me as John Q. Public?

Mr Fram: I was one of the architects, so to speak, of the Architects Act and the engineers act, two groups, two licensed professions with which OACETT members work. The law in Ontario says that unless a thing is given exclusively to another group, anybody can do it. The Architects Act sets out an exclusive practice for architects, and the engineers act sets out an exclusive area of practice for engineering, and there are regulations that further set out specific areas for engineers and architects and other professions.

But when you see a definition -- the definition of "architect," and the definition of "engineer" -- the question is, what's left? The public is overwhelmed by seeing these definitions of design and management and so forth. It says to the student, "What can I do?" It says to the employer, "What can I hire these people to do?" It says to the public, "Can I hire this person to do that kind of thing?" This is directed at answering those questions. What is it that people, in this case OACETT members who aren't engineers or architects, can do? They can provide technical services within the framework of practices, codes and standards that are established or enforced under an act of Ontario.

Then subsection (2) says except where an exclusive right has been given to another profession. So, it says there's a building code; the part that isn't prescribed to the architects or engineers or both can be done by a technologist. It says that these OACETT members can provide "technical services within the framework of published standards in the applicable industry." Whether this is a chemical code, an aeronautical code or avian maintenance or avian design, they can do those things, provided someone else is not given an exclusive right to practise. They can provide technical services that require knowledge and background under the technical direction of a licensed professional.

This says there's a whole host of things that people who are the product of our community colleges can do. This is what they can do. Before, you'd say: "Aren't you just the handmaiden of an architect or engineer? Do you have anything you can do on your own?" The answer is that there's a lot, but nobody is going to find out unless there's a definition.

The Chair: Mr Hardeman, another question?

Mr Hardeman: I just wanted to leave that one for a moment and go to the titles. These are certified technician, certified engineering technician, applied science technologist and certified engineering technologist. When you look at the whole list, what is covered in "certified technician"? If you had "certified technician," does that not cover all certified technicians regardless of the discipline they're in, or is there something that would not be covered? One suggestion somebody made was, "What if I am a certified Maytag repairman technician?" Does that fit in there?

Mr Innocente: We currently have those as protected titles, the CET, the CTech and the AScT. The CET definition applies to both the certified engineering technologist and the certified engineering technician. The reason is that years ago our technicians were also certified engineering technicians. They essentially are grandfathered and will stay as CETs. All new technicians being registered by OACETT are registered as CTech, so they are certified technicians, and that includes engineering and applied science. So the grandfathering clause, the CET, technician, applies only to our earlier members. There are probably 1,200 or 1,300 of them. We chose not to strip the title away from them but to allow them to maintain that. That was in the 1984 protected titles; we decided to maintain it in the current one too. But those members are being grandfathered out.

Mr Hardeman: Going back again to public protection in the bill, are you suggesting that you're now going to the overall designation, so the public will not know whether they're a certified engineering technician or an applied science technologist? Would you just call them certified technicians, and I wouldn't know what they would be?

Mr Innocente: No. They are individual titles, depending on the discipline that they are registered in. If it's an engineering registration, then they are a CET, certified engineering technologist, or a CTech if it's an applied science area. They are either registered as a CTech, for the technician level, or an applied science technologist, for the technologist level. Those titles are very descriptive and very succinct, depending on the amount of engineering in their academic background and their experience versus the engineering.

1130

Mr Fram: The only new titles that are being sought are titles that begin with the word "professional." The other titles are titles that are already used and that there are stamps for and so forth. It's only the issue of whether the titles "P" and "AScT" or "PCET" should be granted to OACETT to give out to its members.

The background on these is that there are particular areas which, in the future, governments may want to license technologists in. The idea behind this is to have the title so that, for example, if government wants to exclude the technology work in an environmental cleanup -- not the engineering or the geoscience, but the technology work -- they would use the people who have a certain type of training. They would say that people with a PCET were the technologists licensed to do that kind of work. Before that, of course, OACETT would have to develop a standard, which the government agreed to, that these kinds of educated, trained and experienced people were the ones the government wanted to give that exclusive right to practise to. So the "P" is intended to be used only when the government has some licensing function it wants to confer on technologists.

There has been some problem with the "P." The professional engineers in 1922 were the first organization to use "professional." They used "professional" in connection with engineering to distinguish themselves from all the other engineers that existed, especially at the time. There were the people running trains, there were the mining engineers, who didn't measure up to the same qualifications. They chose the designation "professional engineer" to describe who they were.

Since that time, throughout Canada, with the exception of Ontario, other groups have taken on the title "P," probably because they were emulating the success of the Association of Professional Engineers. So, you have throughout Canada, with the exception of Ontario, professional geoscientists. We have a report that wants to create a licensed group of professional geoscientists in Ontario. We have in Quebec the use of "technologie professionnelle," using the title "professional" for their technologists who are equivalent to this group we're trying to deal with.

There was a problem raised by the government. When we were first drafting the bill, we circulated it to the government ministry, looking for the title "PT," professional technologist, which would have settled the problem. However, if it was raised -- and it's certainly a point to think about -- in describing themselves, in a letter seeking employment or an application, as "a very professional technologist," have they violated the PT, if in fact you use PT in the title, which is a reserved title? So, is it too generic?

The group of government public servants thought it was too generic. In an effort to accommodate, we said: "Let's try PCET. We already have CET. It's sort of like putting 'fellow' on the front. We'll just put a 'P' on the front of the things we already have, and that shouldn't upset anybody." But in an imperfect world, it seems like it upset, or at least concerned, the Professional Engineers of Ontario, because there's "engineering" in there and it's not just PT, which was OK with them. That is where we're at now on the titles.

The Chair: Mr Wells?

Mr Wells: I'm going to pass at this point, Mr Chairman. I was going to make a comment, but I think it has been covered.

The Chair: All right. Are you finished, Mr Hardeman?

Mr Hardeman: I have just one final question on that, on the professional part of it. I think you explained it fairly well. Again, as a member of the general public, when I relate the word "professional" to beyond the technology or technician stage -- not you as a professional organization. There's no doubt that when I see the initials for a professional engineer, I relate that to a profession. When you include in your title the word "professional," is there a potential for misleading an uninformed individual like myself, leading them to think it's different than it is?

Ms Margaret Nelligan: If I could speak to that, perhaps part of this is not so much a legal answer, but part of it is. The word "professional" was very carefully chosen. In terms of using "professional" in front of the words "certified engineering technologist," it's very clear that the professional is a certified engineering technologist. What we're looking at here is really "engineering technologist."

If you look through all the dictionary definitions and legal definitions -- and I've had many students in my office pore over it to determine if there was any problem with it -- "technologist" often comes up with the same definition as "professional." There's no standardized meaning for either term so as to make them inconsistent or to lend to one a specific meaning that the other cannot have.

In terms of engineering technologists -- and I'm speaking to background here that I've been provided by others -- OACETT was created at the instigation of the professional engineers as long ago as the 1950s, so engineering technologists have been recognized as engineering technologists since that time and by statute since 1984. It's very clear, in using "professional certified engineering technologist" that what is the professional category here is an engineering technologist; it's not an engineer.

"Engineering technologist" is a well-recognized term and is recognized by statute. In that sense, when it's looked at in context, it's not, in our view, confused with professional engineering, because "engineering technologist" is a well-understood term. It's also our hope that, in conjunction with the rest of the legislation as a whole, it will be even more well-understood with the description of work that's contained in the statute. That's for future and better understanding. But it is a recognized term within Ontario as a designation.

Mr Hardeman: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not even saying it's an inappropriate definition. But if we're going to use the word "professional" in its generic form as a descriptive term as opposed to a title -- and that's really what you're suggesting -- then is the converse also true, that the other class, a certified engineering technologist, is not a professional?

Mr Innocente: I can see your concern with that. I've been certified as a technologist since 1970, so I've been practising for 28 years in the business. As Bruce indicated, I'm a partner in a firm. We employ engineers, technicians, technologists. I have always considered myself a professional.

You're right. Some members may not necessarily like having to go to the PCET, if and when the time comes, but the government probably have a responsibility, if they expect to allow technologists to do certain things under demand-side legislation, to have a right to a special designation for those individuals. That really is the reason we would like that title protected. It may be the same CET that was doing the work yesterday, and if he meets the criteria to do the work under that special circumstance, then he may be re-registered as a PCET.

1140

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I think that conversation was valuable and certainly added to my concern that there needs to be some further discussion here.

You have said to us that you've not kept this close to your chest, that you've been out there discussing, but we've had two professional groups before us this morning suggesting otherwise, that they were surprised at the end of November to have received the package and then not to have had any opportunity to sit down and discuss this further.

I think that in the interest of the public and the practitioners out there it's only right that we take the time now that we're this close. I didn't hear the two groups that came with some concerns being totally opposed to what you're doing here. I think they support the evolution of these acts as they govern members, but there are still some pieces they have some concern about, which they're convinced you could resolve with some further discussion and sitting down, and perhaps bring a piece of legislation back here before us that then would have more of their support.

I was going to suggest that maybe we entertain a recommendation and change by the architects that would satisfy them, but having had the professional engineers come as well, it seems that might not cover their concerns. I suggest that we ask this group to take the time that is necessary to have that discussion and perhaps have this back to us as soon as that happens, with some recommendations that hopefully would satisfy the groups that have come before us. Is that a problem for you?

Mr Wells: I would make the comment personally that on the concept of the idea of this legislation coming out a week or 10 days ago, I should clarify that the first draft of this came out in April to the Attorney General with copies to the engineers, the architects and the architectural technologists, and that this legislation has been going through drafts since that stage. The change from "professional technologist" to "professional certified engineering technologist" came as a result of the meetings we had with your interministerial committee, who expressed a concern at the time that the "professional technologist" designation was too generic, so yes, that was changed, and that was changed near the last draft because that interministerial committee meeting was about a month ago. So there were changes in that.

My sense is that what we have tried to do is to discuss this with virtually every group in the province. We have tried to get to most MPPs, to MPPs who handle departments, to various people. I think we talked to about 90 people about this particular thing. Some of the concerns you have registered here are part of the compromise between the architects, the engineers, OACETT and others in terms of finding that something is there. I think we're pretty close. The one question I would ask is; does anybody have something you would like to put in that place other than 'professional'? I have soul-searched that one very hard. I've tried an awful lot of designations and titles. I haven't come up with one that people seem comfortable with.

Mr Martin: If I might, perhaps by way of some suggestion, and I'd want to hear from the professional engineers as well on this, there is a recommendation made by the architects that perhaps we could table and have a discussion about. If you like, we can do that.

I would move, then, that subsection 12(2) be amended by the addition of the underlined words so the subsection reads as follows, and this is how it would read:

"(2) Subsection (1) does not authorize a certified technician, a certified engineering technician, an applied science technologist, a certified engineering technologist, a professional applied science technologist or a professional certified engineering technologist to provide services that, under an act of Ontario or of Canada, only a licensed member of a profession or," and these are the underlined words, "a registered member of an association is permitted to provide".

They would have us go on to add the follow subsection which would be:

"(3) A person who contravenes any provision of this section is guilty of an offence".

I table those two amendments and ask for some comments perhaps from the groups that have expressed some concern here this morning so that maybe we can deal with this today instead of putting it off for another time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. You have tabled that for purposes of discussion. As you know, if that was to be a motion after discussion we would do that during clause-by-clause. Secondly, we would have that written up and distributed to all members of the committee.

Following Mr Martin, Mr Hardeman, do you have a comment on this?

Mr Hardeman: Yes. The question, to Mr Martin, is, was that the amendment that was put forward by --

Mr Martin: By the architects.

Mr Hardeman: OK, because I think it's very important that if we're looking at that extensive an amendment, we all have it before us to make sure that it does what it does and that the impression or the need for it is clearly outlined.

Mr Wells: We certainly would want to comment on that amendment. We are not happy with that particular amendment and we have a sense it confuses the issue further than it clarifies it. I'd ask Mr Fram who has actually done some research on that amendment to make some comments on it for us. We actually did a written brief on this. You might like to make some comments, or Margaret might.

Mr Fram: Actually, Margaret Nelligan has worked with legislative council to address the issue they're attempting to address in that and also an issue raised by the architects. So I think there's another resolution of the issue.

Ms Nelligan: We took a look at that proposed amendment, which we had access to prior to today's committee meeting, and understand that part of the question the architectural technologists are raising with respect to their reference in section 12(2) to the word "profession," as well as another technical legal comment that was raised by the architects' association, if I can just clarify that there's a distinction between the two groups commenting on this section, is that legally it perhaps was not addressing all those persons who could be licensed, because corporations and partnerships may be licensed. In conjunction with legislative council in advance of today's meeting, we proposed an amendment that we think solves both of those problems or issues and addresses the architectural technologists' concern.

Also, in terms of the proposed amendment by the architectural technologists, we believe their proposed amendments confuse the issue because they appear to address this legislation as if it's right-to-license legislation. This is not right-to-license legislation; this is essentially right-to-title. The description of work does not compel any person to do anything nor does it prohibit any person from doing anything.

1150

Therefore, it's not legally sensical to say that contravening the section is an offence. There's simply nothing to contravene. There's no prohibition and no mandated act. So subsection (3) of that proposed amendment, we believe, does not fit the part of their concern. The other part was subsection 12(2) and they had a concern that it was unclear whether someone was licensed only as a member of a profession. We proposed, working with legislative council, an amendment which I believe has circulated somewhere here that simply removes the references to "profession" and tightens up the legal drafting in that section.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr Shea, I may have cut off Mr Hardeman.

Mr Hardeman: Just a clarification: One of the comments when I was talking with committee member Martin about the amendment, and it was suggested that it was from architects as opposed to the architectural technologists, I'm not sure the architects would be necessarily supportive of or opposed to that since we haven't heard a presentation from them. I wanted to make sure the record was clear.

For the purpose of the discussion as was just mentioned, the proposal that was being suggested would be to substitute in subsection 12(2) of the bill and amend it by striking out "under an act of Ontario or of Canada, only a licensed member of a profession is permitted to provide" and substituting "only persons authorized under an act of Ontario or of Canada are permitted to provide".

Leg council looked at the amendment that was proposed and suggested this was a more appropriate way of wording that would, in their opinion, accomplish the same task. I agree that it would take some discussion, and in fairness to all the parties, everyone could see that amendment to make sure it does what it's intended to do and does not negatively impact the case for someone else.

The Chair: We have a second amendment for discussion. I now go to Mr Shea.

Mr Shea: I think it's an inappropriate way for us to try to resolve a very thorny issue now, in just a matter of a few minutes or whatever time is remaining to us today.

There are a number of central issues that obviously are focused in the debate today, not least of which was we had the question, "Are technologists professional?" You asked that in a number of different ways. It's a significant question. We are talking about scope of knowledge and skill sets. We are talking about public liability and accountability, and that's not only under law, but in terms of relationships, to the public and to the client.

I have to confess now that after listening to this discussion I have the spectre of three standing before me, designated as CT, CET and PCET, and trying to determine, "What do they do?" Then I have the other spectre of what I would call, in my old-fashioned sense of living in the world, really only three professions; actually only one profession, the others are upstarts and you know which one I'm referring to, obviously. I know Mr Martin would agree with me wholeheartedly in that regard.

I have the professional engineers, as we know, in layman's terms, saying: "What is this? There's a strange kind of confusion that's going on." I'm giving you just a lay experience from this. Behind that I have the awesome experience of, for example, nursing. In some ways I hear the echo of nursing going on right now when we had "registered nurse." Then we suddenly had a new designation emerge called "certified nursing assistant" or CNAs. Then there was the great debate that went on to say, "Let's drop the C and go for an R," so we go to RNAs. Then the great debate goes on. Then we find the movement going on within the profession, even with the nurses all trying to find their positioning within the function, saying, "Maybe we'll go to 'nurse practitioner'." Now we have medicine beginning to say, "Whoa, what's going on here?" and everybody's pushing the envelope in all different directions.

My ramblings are all focused on this whole issue of, where do we bring some clarity for the public as well as for the practitioners in terms of skill sets? I think that's very important. It strikes me as though the person sitting to my right, who has responsibility for red tape, and the parliamentary assistants for education and other areas, and governments of all sorts, perhaps ought to be giving some kind of consideration to what's happening within the structures of our professions in our provincial economy. I am not persuaded that I ought to vote for this today, I have to tell you categorically, because I have some concerns about it. I want to do the right thing. I want to make sure there's clarity to it, and I can't see the clarity emerging.

More than that, I have to ask a question of you: Even if this were to pass, and we have CTs and CETs -- the descriptions have been helpful; you've really given me an understanding of where you're at in terms of trying to grandfather and deal with some of the new graduates. Then you add in the professional. You've been forthcoming enough to say there is some difficulty with that. I find myself asking, "On the other hand, could a professional engineer" -- understand, I'm using my old-fashioned terms of the university graduate and the standards that are involved there -- "act in the role of a technologist?" If so, I've got the lines blurring back and forth the same, I suppose, as an MD could practise as a nurse. It would be charming to see that, but I suppose that conceivably could happen and maybe, on occasion, does.

That's my confusion at this point and I'm not helped by the debate that's before me right now. I am helped only in the sense that there seems to be a sense that you're close to some kind of resolution. I would prefer you found the resolution and it could stand up to the, I hope, insightful review of this committee, and be your resolution rather than the committee trying to jury-rig or find some kind of immediate consensus: "OK, let's maybe go here; maybe that's the better solution." That's what troubles me. I'm not sure if you want to make any response to my comments at all. If so, may God have mercy on you -- speaking on behalf of the first profession. Go ahead.

Mr Innocente: Mr Shea, I can appreciate your comments. Certainly, if you have confusion, that's why we're here today. We will try to identify and bring forward information so you will feel at ease. What I can reiterate is that we have worked with the closest professions that OACETT and our members work with: the engineers and the architects. We have worked with them for 40 years, and we have worked very closely for the last two, in drafting a definition and looking at the titles.

All I can tell you is that at this point professional engineers have indicated support for the definition. All they are saying is they have some concerns with the word "professional." I'm not sure what else they're suggesting. Nothing has ever been brought forward to us to indicate anything different than the "PT" that we've talked about, which has now been changed to "PCET" based on the interministerial committee meetings we had in early September.

We have met with Mr Sheehan and the Red Tape Commission. We have indicated that we see the definitions as clearing up some red tape and making much clearer what certified members of OACETT can do and do in the workplace. I'm not sure that has answered your concerns. All I can reiterate is that we have tried to work very closely with people. This minor amendment that we're talking about in 12(2) is very minor. We have no problems with it. Legislative counsel and our counsel have worked with that. We understand the architects are agreeable with that statement. We're not sure about AATO. All we can do is try to address the issues as we see them.

Mr Shea: So you would agree that a CET and PCET standing in front of me could be the same thing?

Mr Innocente: No. The CTech is a technician, generally a two-year community college graduate with a combination of academic and two years of experience qualifications; a CET or applied science technologist or three-year community college graduates, combination of two years' minimum experience. All our technicians and technologists, before being certified by OACETT, have a mandatory professional practice exam. They have the choice of a two-day seminar and an exam program that they must go through, each and every one of them. Our members are put through a rigorous program before they become certified with OACETT.

1200

Mr Shea: So a CT is two years.

Mr Innocente: The CTech is a two-year community college graduate.

Mr Shea: And a CET is three years.

Mr Innocente: Yes, three years.

Mr Shea: And the PCET?

Mr Innocente: The PCET would generally be a three-year community college graduate with more experience or specialty experience in whatever area. We may come to some agreement with the government in the particular demand-side area. It could be the building code; it could be the environmental code.

Mr Shea: You're hoping it would be OACETT that would confer the "P."

Mr Innocente: We would like to be part of that, certainly. We have ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Transportation and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario to look at a program right now.

Mr Shea: All right. Thank you. That clarifies it.

The Chair: Mr Wells, do you have a comment?

Mr Wells: I would add to that. Part of what you're saying I understand. You and I have talked about this in the past. To some extent, part of the dilemma is the silos in the field. That's the next step that comes along two years from now as we start to discuss, how do we do something in the engineering and applied sciences field to become competitive in the world, and how do we get into some kind of umbrella legislation similar to the health sciences? We have some data on it and we'll pass it on to some of you. We see that as the next step.

I do think these designations are particularly clear in that you have two-year technicians, you have three-year certified engineering technologists who are in the engineering field and you have applied science technologists who are in the non-engineering fields, surveying and things like that. We did actually, in our presentation, give you a list of those designations. I think that's relatively clear. The description of work, with the amendment legislative counsel has, answers the concerns in that area.

I would add that the architectural technologists have not talked. Their comment to me was that they had planned to come to this to lend support to what we were doing, but they were not going to take a position on this bill. I think it would be fair to say -- and if I'm not saying this correctly, I'm sure they'll say so -- that what they said was they would not oppose this legislation. They're not standing up and supporting it, but they're saying they would not oppose this legislation.

It's important that you move forward on this. The fact that the engineering applied science design community has come together and basically said, "We're moving in the right direction on this description," is very key. We have also made it very clear that we will work with the professional engineers of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Architects in trying to use this additional designation. We have said in our documentation to you that we will not go off on a tangent and use this thing; we will work together. It's obviously of no value to us to have a designation that we can't work with the professional engineers and the architects with, because if we can't use it as part of a team in that kind of process, it will be meaningless in the workforce. So obviously we would propose to work with those concepts in that way.

On the description of work, with the amendment I think we are pretty close and there is some reasonable clarity. On the designations, I am mindful of the concern of professional engineers in terms of the use of "professional." We would still prefer to go to "professional technologist." That would be the choice we had at the start. We moved from that designation because your interministerial committee told us they were not comfortable with it, so we moved to what we have. If one is not concerned, we would go back to that.

Mr Shea: Let me just make sure I'm clear on that. Your position would be that you'd be very happy to collapse the CT, CET and PCET into PT?

Mr Innocente: No.

Mr Wells: The PCET and PAScT into PT, professional technologist.

Mr Shea: But the others would still say CT, because of the two-year/three-year differential?

Mr Innocente: Yes.

Mr Wells: That's right.

The Chair: I have five questions remaining: Mr Caplan, Mr Martin, Mr Shea, Mr Leadston and Mr Boushy.

Mr Caplan: I certainly want to congratulate the association for coming forward and being somewhat proactive in trying to lend some definition. I must say I support their call for the Attorney General's ministry to look at some type of umbrella legislation and sort out a lot of these issues in the design, the engineering and the applied science fields. Obviously, there are a great many organizations, groups and associations which are practising. It seems, like what was done in health care, a good idea to sort out who's responsible for what. The public would have some knowledge and ability to do that.

That being said, I must admit I have some difficulty with that process being circumvented and done on a piecemeal basis through a private member's bill. I really do think it should be done in a more comprehensive way. I understand that the description of "work" is not prescriptive and it's not prohibitive. But that's not really the point. The point is that it should be done together with all of the other facets, all of the other components of the different areas.

I'm a bit curious. Maybe one question is, when somebody goes into a course at the community college, what would the calendar say for the course study they would want to go into? It would obviously give some description of what happens and it would obviously give some clarity about what opportunities, what fields you'll be going into and in what situations a person going into this field might find themselves. I wonder if you could give me some idea about what people are expecting when they take the course at a community college level.

Mr Innocente: The community college system and their calendars, for the most part, give a very brief, generic description of the course, whether it's a two-year technician-level course or a three-year technologist-level course. Community colleges grant diplomas at the technician or technologist level.

We as an association are strictly voluntary. We approach those graduates and make the association available to them. They have the option of whether they choose to register or not. We provide what we think is a recognized association with professional qualifications and competencies that those members still have to meet. There is no automatic entry into the association by the community college graduates. There is, in fact, as I mentioned, a strict law and ethics professional practice exam that each and every member has to go through. They have the option of doing a two-day seminar program and they have to write a three-hour exam program.

Again, I would reiterate that the community college system may be somewhat vague as to what their opportunities are later on. We try to fill the gap as best we can; in fact, we have a booth set up right now over at the Construct Canada show and we have many students, employers and industries that are going by our booth right now. We will be handing out information about OACETT, about the profession, about what engineering and applied science technicians and technologists do. We are well-defined as to what our certified members do. Part of that is certainly their academic college backgrounds, but there are still other competencies they must reach to become full members.

Mr Caplan: Sure, plus practical experience and --

Mr Wells: Plus a minimum of two years of increasing practical experience.

1210

Mr Caplan: I do think, as I said, that the scope-of-work language is useful to have. I am somewhat concerned that it's out of a larger context. I think there's a role for the Attorney General's ministry, as you said, to bring together the various groups to have some kind of umbrella legislation. I wondered if you would comment on your discussions that have taken place.

Mr Innocente: Certainly OACETT is very pro-umbrella legislation. We have been promoting that since the early 1980s. Unfortunately, we are the only association that has been promoting it. We've not had the backing of government or other associations towards that goal. We are starting to find that there are a number of associations that are asking the same questions we are. We are certainly very glad that the government is starting to recognize that there is a need there. We still see that even if we started that today -- and I might tell you that we're prepared to start January l.

We have had discussions with many of the associations that are here today about this very issue. OACETT is ready to go. What we need are other associations to join the cause, but I think we need a clearer mandate from the government too. Part of the reason is that professional engineers, as the largest association in Ontario, with over 80,000 members, as of today have not had a clear decision as to how they would like to proceed. They are the holders of the regulation right now, and they perhaps see that it may not be in their interest to give it up, unfortunately. That's not to say we haven't had positive discussions with them. As a matter of fact Stewart Baxter, who is here, and Ted Wisz, will be putting that on their agenda for the PEO-OACETT joint management board meetings in the new year and they will be looking at that a lot more seriously. It will take some time. Maybe in a year from now, maybe two years, we'll be back here with an umbrella situation.

In the meantime, our members have been around for over 40 years. We are asking for the recognition that we feel our members deserve. They are out there practising, day in and day out, without a defined scope of work. They have protected titles but we feel -- and our members have asked time and time again that we have a clear definition of work with protected titles. That has been my mandate for the last two years as president of OACETT, to work towards this situation. As Bruce had indicated, in the last 14 or 15 years we have not had the engineering and science community together in one room that have agreed to 99.9% of a private member's bill.

Mr Caplan: I believe this bill would set a significant precedent in this kind of language appearing through this avenue. When scope-of-work language has been put in legislation it has been a part of government legislation.

Mr Innocente: I think the comments from the Attorney General's office are that maybe it's time that it does happened. Maybe we need a definition of protected titles, what they actually mean. We've taken the initiative and we've come forward with that proposal. In fact, as we indicated to Mr Sheehan of the Red Tape Commission, we think this will cut the red tape. It will be that much clearer as to what our members can and cannot do.

Mr Caplan: But won't you set up a situation where every single association --

Mr Innocente: Unfortunately, I can't control that.

Mr Caplan: I understand -- will come forward and say: "Look, this is the area that we work in as well," or "This is an area that we view as very important as well." You get the potential for overlap or confusion through these constant decisions being made on an ad hoc basis as opposed to a comprehensive one.

Mr Innocente: This is where I hope the government would see fit to perhaps mandate or instruct that a committee be established to review this in further detail and work towards that umbrella legislation. That's not why we're here today but I can sympathize with what you're saying. We have indicated that to the government since the early 1980s.

Mr Caplan: One of my great concerns is that without the benefit of individuals throughout the industry but also throughout the ministry reviewing this as a whole, we're making piecemeal decisions. How do they fit together? How is that going to benefit the larger public? So I do have some concerns.

Mr Fram: The first question is, I worked for 22 years at the Ministry of the Attorney General and the likelihood, under the most blossoming number of civil servants in the policy division, was nil for this happening at the Ministry of the Attorney General. Under the number of civil servants under the existing government who are there in policy today, it is less than zero. So would it be nice? Yes, it would be, but unless the organizations themselves do the whole job and then come to the government, the chance is that nothing will happen. This is the beginning of the organizations coming together, but the chance of the government doing something to put this together is non-existent.

The second part is just a reminder that there is nothing in this description that inhibits anyone, so in fact there can't be conflict. AATO members, architectural technologists, can do things within this definition. There's nothing to restrict them from doing any part of the definition. In fact, that's what they do in relation to their part of the technology field. There's no conflict. The basic idea of certification, of right-to-title legislation is here. This is your banner: Go out and compete in the market. So there are architectural technologists who are members of AATO and there are architectural technologists who are members of OACETT and there are architectural members who are members of both organizations. We're talking about a market symbol. This is saying that this is what these people can do.

Mr Caplan: I wasn't here in 1991 when the health professions -- I can't imagine that there was a great willingness to want to move in the kind of direction that they did, but it did happen. I understand it was a long and arduous process and there may be many other factors as well, but the fact for me is that it happened. There is certainly sufficient precedent for it. It seems to me it's worked at settling many of the outstanding issues. It may very well be an excellent idea. I know it's something that OACETT has called for. I think, from listening to some of the members of this committee at least, you've made a pretty good case for it. Maybe that message will go back to the Attorney General's ministry and there may very well be some action.

That being said, I have some concern as well, as has been expressed, around the use of the professional designation. There's no doubt in my mind that members of this organization are professional, that they carry on that type of work. As a member of the public, if you said "professional engineer," that has a particular connotation in my mind. I'm unclear how somebody hearing this particular definition or designation would perceive what the term actually means. I would put it this way, that if you were to say large-P professional to me, it would give me the impression of somebody trained under a particular regimen, I believe always through the university system. I don't know of other large-P professions which are outside.

One of my questions is, are there any other professional designations for people who have been trained outside the university system in Ontario?

Mr Fram: The medical technologists, the college of medical technology, the College of Denturists of Ontario -- there are quite a number of colleges of technologists under the regulated health professions where the members are not university-trained but are trained in community colleges.

Mr Caplan: I should have framed it a little bit better. Outside of that one particular area, which was dealt with rather comprehensively through the scope of work definitions, have there ever been professional designations conferred on any group that was not trained through that kind of regimen? That one's a little bit special because it's been dealt with at length through quite a long process dealing with all of the different facets of the industry. I'm just wondering, aside from that particular one --

Mr Fram: There are many designations conferred under private legislation passed by the Ontario Legislature that indicate that the holders of those have some high standard of professionalism. But apart from those, if you're talking about exclusive rights to practise, there are very few actually given. Those under the regulated health professions, architects, engineering, law, and perhaps a couple of others, surveyors, and also veterinarians, that's the list of licensed professions.

Mr Caplan: The difficulty I have in my mind is that as a consumer I don't have detailed knowledge of this particular sector or industry or field. How would I know what the qualifications were if there is this conferred designation? Does that not connote something else? I wonder if I'm all that different from others.

Mr Fram: The notion of the use of "professional" would be exclusive if -- for example, under the environmental legislation and the regulations thereunder, professional certified engineering technologists are given the exclusive right to use a technology in connection with an environmental cleanup as described under the regulations. The use is where it does confer a licence.

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It being past 12, I would suggest that we defer any further discussion of this until we meet again next week, and that the group come back and hopefully will have met with the other group so that we can have something we can move forward with.

The Chair: All in favour? OK. This meeting will stand --

Mr Sheehan: Can I get one thing on the record?

The Chair: I'm not sure if you can, Mr Sheehan. The clock marches on.

Mr Sheehan: I just want a point of privilege.

The Chair: OK, before we vote.

Mr Sheehan: I remember meeting with you gentlemen, but it was back before the summer. I recall and I support what you're talking about. However, I do not recall discussing with you the use of the term "professional." Am I correct in that?

Mr Wells: You're probably correct.

Mr Sheehan: All right. I'd just like the record cleared.

Mr Wells: We talked about the description of work.

Mr Sheehan: Right. I'd like the record to be clear on that point.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1224.