Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

OTTAWA CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT, 1996

ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO ACT, 1996

CONTENTS

Wednesday 4 December 1996

Ottawa Civic Hospital Act, 1996, Bill Pr35, Mr Patten

Mr Richard Patten

Mr Sol Shinder

Mr David Hill

Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario Act, 1996, Bill Pr40, Mr Hastings

Mr John Hastings

Miss Virginia MacLean

Mr David Hornblow

Mr Peter Adams

Mr Anthony Griffiths

Mr Robert Mitchell

Mr Bruce Wells

Mr Angelo Innocente

Mr Kerry Traynor

Mr David Hodgeson

Mr John Brunner

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

*Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

*Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

*Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

*Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Mr E. J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

*Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)

Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)

*Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC); parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

*Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr BruceSmith (Middlesex PC)

*In attendance /présents

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr JohnTwohig, counsel, public law and policy division,

Ministry of the Attorney General

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins

Staff / Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.

The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning all, and welcome to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. We have two orders of business on the agenda today, Bill Pr35 and Bill Pr40.

I might mention with respect to Bill Pr40 that we have a number of interested parties registered to address this bill. If there are any additional groups who wish to speak to this bill, I would ask that you have a word with Mr Decker if you're not registered to speak on what is the second item of our agenda this morning.

OTTAWA CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr35, An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

The Chair: Our first order of business is Bill Pr35. The sponsor is Richard Patten, MPP. Mr Patten, I would ask you to say a few words of introduction and then introduce the applicants for this bill.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'm glad you explained the throngs of people here today. I thought they were here to listen to our bill, but I see it's for the second one.

I am here as a sponsor of the bill, An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital, which is a hospital in my riding, and I have with me the chair of the board of trustees, Mr Sol Shinder, who will introduce and make some comments on the bill; and also legal counsel for the hospital, Mr David Hill, from Perley-Robertson, Panet, Hill and McDougall. I will just pass this over for Mr Shinder to make comments. There is an amendment that should be circulated, and Mr Shinder will speak to that as well.

Mr Sol Shinder: Mr Chair, members of the committee, as you are aware, this is a bill relating to the governance of the Ottawa Civic Hospital. Essentially, it is a change in the appointment structure for members of the board of trustees. Historically, the Ottawa Civic Hospital's board of trustees has been appointed by Ottawa city council under the City of Ottawa Act. The city of Ottawa in effect is the owner of the hospital. It is a bit of an anachronism in that for the last 30 years or so the city of Ottawa has not contributed anything to the hospital as such; the operating funds all come from the Ministry of Health and other patient care initiatives on the part of the hospital.

Essentially, it is a change to make the appointment process a little more transparent, take it out of the political arena and have the hospital governed, like most of the hospitals in Ontario, through the Public Hospitals Act. The appointment process will still be one that will respect the community the hospital serves but will be a little easier on the hospital in getting the kinds of skills that are necessary on a board of trustees in these difficult times for hospitals.

Mr Hill and I are prepared to answer any questions you may have relating to it. This is a process that has gone through the Ottawa city council, and they've approved it. It's taken some time to negotiate it, four or five years since we started the process. Hopefully, we're getting there before the hospital scene is changed next year with restructuring. In anticipation of that question, I might as well deal with it.

It is our view that we will be better able to deal with the restructuring decisions as a body that's independent of the local municipal political scene; we'll be on the same footing as everybody else in the Ottawa area.

I might just add that the city of Ottawa has approved this and its council has indicated that it is in favour of the amendments as well, some housekeeping amendments.

We're prepared to answer any questions.

The Chair: Before we go to questions from the committee, are there any interested parties in the room who wish to speak to this? Seeing none, I would now ask the parliamentary assistant of municipal affairs, Derwyn Shea, for any comments on behalf of the government.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I appreciate Mr Patten bringing this one forward. As he and other members of this committee will know, it's a very straightforward request that's being made. It's quite common. It's following a very normal path. A number have been brought forward in the last few years. Mr Shinder points out quite rightly that this now allows a separation between hospital operations and municipal operations, which is in keeping with the changes of the government operations since at least 1982 when funding for hospitals became a responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

In addition to being able to separate out the appointments to the board, the other part that Mr Shinder did not refer to but which is equally important to the municipality is that it frees the municipality from the burden of liability for debt and other financial affairs of the hospital. One understands why Ottawa council would be quite pleased to approve, as other councils have as well.

There are no objections -- a very straightforward application.

The Chair: The first question is to Mr Boushy.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have no problem with it except that it seems odd, to me anyway, at this stage, that it's premature, because any decision by the restructuring commission overrides any decision we make here.

Mr Shinder: Ultimately, the restructuring commission is going to make its decision on how the hospital scene will be reconfigured in Ontario, in Ottawa in particular. This process was started well before the commission came into being. However, we still feel it's appropriate that this proceed and that in the fullness of time, whatever the commission may decide, the hospital will be better able to deal with it through this structure than through the prior structure. We will avoid any political interference -- not that there was any; rather, the possibility of any political interference in the ultimate decision, whatever it may be.

The restructuring commission will make some general recommendations relating to what should or shouldn't take place. We expressed our opinion to the commission as to what we believe is appropriate -- a merger is one of them -- but the details of that will be left to the boards of the hospitals to negotiate, and we believe this structure will allow that process to proceed on a smoother plane.

Mr Boushy: Just for my own information, when do you expect the commission to hand down its decision?

Mr Shinder: It would probably be January or February.

The Chair: Are there any further questions to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant? Seeing no additional questions, are the members of this committee ready to vote?

Mr Shea: Mr Chairman, on a point of order, did we hear that there were amendments?

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I have two motions to put forward, Mr Chairman. I'm at your direction at which point to proceed with those.

The Chair: Let's carry through section by section. If you have a motion or amendment at a certain point, we'll make it at that point.

Are there any amendments with respect to the first 10 sections of this bill?

Mr Smith: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Application of the City of Ottawa Act, 1988

"10.1 Section 1 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1988, does not apply to the hospital."

The Chair: We are voting on Bill Pr35, An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital, sponsored by Mr Patten. We will vote on sections 1 to 9 first and then we'll vote on section 10 as amended. In keeping with the procedure, we will collapse sections 1 through to 9.

Shall sections 1 through 9 carry? Carried.

Shall section 10 -- we'll just take a minute while the motion is being distributed.

Mr Smith: I'm not sure if I did that appropriately. I want to make sure that this is a new section being added and not an amendment to section 10, if I understand that correctly through the clerk. I've confused the committee in that regard.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Which is easy to do.

Mr Smith: Which is easy to do, apparently, on occasion.

The Chair: I'll read the motion. It refers to section 10.1: "Section 1 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1988, does not apply to the hospital."

Mr Patten: That's adding that to the section. It's not replacing it.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I don't understand what you're doing. The City of Ottawa Act is referred to in section 11; I don't understand the implications of that. Section 10(1) deals with the Ottawa Civic Hospital Foundation. Is that a corporation? I don't understand this whole thing.

Mr David Hill: Perhaps I can be of assistance to the committee. Section 10, as printed in the original bill, is intended to stay. Section 10.1 is a new section, which I understand the motion covers. Subsection 10(1) starts on page 3 of the original printed bill, and going right over to where section 11 starts on page 4, that section is intended to remain. The motion, as I understand it, is that a new section labelled 10.1 is a new section, an additional section. The 10 that is printed remains and there is a new section added, and the new section indicates that a section of the City of Ottawa Act of 1988 does not apply to the hospital; "hospital" is defined in the act as the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Mr Sheehan: How is that affected by subsection 11(1)?

Mr Hill: There will be an amendment to section 11 to follow, if I understand correctly.

Mr Sheehan: Can you explain it all in context, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Should we ask for that amendment now, as well?

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Tom Prins): Yes, I can hand that amendment out now, if that will help, and we'll vote on that after.

Mr Pettit: Just in terms of the numbering here, should this not then be subsection 10(3)? Is it not added after 10(2)? We already have a 10(1).

1020

The Chair: This is labelled 10.1.

Mr Pettit: All right.

The Chair: Any other questions on this procedure? Do you have a comment on that?

Mr Shea: It's very simple, what's being suggested. We're simply saying that section 10 continues as printed. The applicant is requesting that 10 be amended by adding 10.1. That's quite normal. It makes it very clear that the separation occurs with the government of the city of Ottawa. That's very clear and that's established.

Section 11 may still continue but it's not contradictory, only because it still allows the municipality the right to do whatever it wants to do with regard to hospitals, this one notwithstanding. It's within its purview if it wishes to assist or not, but they are separated out, and the liabilities that would normally occur under the current legislation for the Ottawa council are separated out. It's a very simple amendment, I think.

Mr Sheehan: No one's questioning that it's probably simple. Probably we're simple, too. This is where the thing cuts, I guess, where you actually extricate the city of Ottawa from the act that governs the hospital. Is that it?

Mr Shea: I think 10.1 in fact makes it very clear that they are not part of it, but 11 still allows the municipality, if it wishes to have some kind of continuing relationship with the hospital, with the hospital's approval and so forth, it may continue to do so. It wouldn't worry anybody if it were or were not there, but the fact is, this is the way the applicant would like it left, and I respect Mr Patten's judgement in sponsoring a bill of this sort. In my opinion, it's a very simple amendment.

Mr Hill: If I can add, there is another hospital in Ottawa, the Riverside Hospital, that is remaining governed by the Ottawa city council. That's why they wanted this specified that it's the Civic Hospital that's being removed and not the Riverside Hospital.

The Chair: Any other questions to clarify this particular motion? This is a motion before us with respect to section 10.1, which reads:

"10.1 Section 1 of the City of Ottawa Act, 1988, does not apply to the hospital."

Does this motion carry? Carried.

Now we will go back up to section 10 itself. Shall section 10 carry? Carried.

Now we will jump down to section 11. I'm sorry, further explanation? We have now voted and passed a motion with respect to 10.1. The next question is, does 10.1 carry? Carried.

Following procedure, we will collapse the remaining sections 11, 12 and 13, and on the next page, 14.

Mr Smith: I have a further motion -- actually it's a follow-up to Mr Sheehan's comments -- and it reads as follows:

I move that subsection 11(1) of the bill be struck out.

Mr Shea: Is that 11(1) or 11.1?

Mr Smith: On page 4, the way it's printed, 11(1).

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You're repealing all of section 11?

Mr Shea: It just cleans it up.

The Chair: This motion has been distributed. Are we ready to vote on that motion?

Mr Bisson: I apologize. I came in late. I was dealing with something else. We've already dealt with page 3, subsection (11)? That's already been dealt with?

The Chair: Section 11? No, we have not voted on 11 yet.

Mr Bisson: No, no. I've got to back up here. The bottom of page 3, subsection (11). "Appointment to board" is the explanatory note beside it. Hang on a second.

Mr Shea: Which bill are you on, Mr Bisson?

Mr Bisson: Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): That's section 6.

Mr Pettit: That's already passed.

Mr Bisson: All right. Too late. Thank you.

Mr Shea: The amendment that's put before us now is to clean up the point that Mr Sheehan and I were addressing earlier. It just cleans it up and makes it very clear. With the amendment we've now put forward for 10, this just removes that other section.

The Chair: We are voting on subsection 11(1) of the bill. It reads, "I move that subsection 11(1) of the bill be struck out."

Shall this motion carry? Carried.

Section 11 has been amended. The motion has passed. Shall section 11 carry? Carried.

Shall sections 12, 13 and 14 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? Agreed.

I wish to thank the applicants and the sponsor.

Mr Patten: Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that. That was a tough one.

Mr Shinder: When would you anticipate it coming before the House for second and third reading?

The Chair: I'll report it in the House today.

Mr Bisson: Typically, we'd be passing it the last day of the fall session -- typically.

The Chair: It's not in this committee's hands. I declare this order of business closed.

1030

ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS OF ONTARIO ACT, 1996

Consideration of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario.

The Chair: Our next order of business is Bill Pr40. The sponsor is MPP John Hastings. I would ask MPP Hastings and the applicants to approach the witness table.

I'll draw your attention to this agenda. There is also a listing on the back of this page. I might make special note that Robert Mitchell, former MPP for Carleton, is with us as well. Mr Mitchell, welcome back to Queen's Park.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Which side is he on?

Mr Shea: On the side of the angels.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): If you have to ask, you don't know.

The Chair: Mr Hastings, I would ask if you could make some brief introductory remarks and also introduce the applicants.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for having us here today for Bill Pr40 regarding the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario. I'd like to introduce Mr David Hornblow who is the president of the association, Mr Peter Adams who is executive director of the association and Ms Virginia MacLean who is counsel to the association from Cassels Brock.

Mr Hastings: Cassels Brock.

The purpose of our meeting here today is to deal with Bill Pr40, which is to establish the Association of Architectural Technologists on the same playing field as other related associations that have grown up over the last 10 years. There are specific amendments the applicants will deal with in all their dimensions. So I'll let them proceed to make their presentation to the committee dealing with this bill.

Miss Virginia MacLean: As Mr Hastings has indicated, this is to put this association, which has been in existence since 1962 as an unincorporated association and since 1969 as a corporation without share capital, on an equal footing with similar associations: for example, the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects has been a private bill, the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects Act; the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario Act; the Ontario Building Officials Association Act; and the Ontario Association of Veterinary Technicians Act, to name a few. In 1984, you had the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists Act. These are similar groups that have, through private legislation, received statutory recognition of their specialty.

Not only do the provisions of the bill relate to the governance and discipline of members but they also deal with the granting of the right to use a special title. In this case, the special title that is being sought to be recognized is that of "architectural technologist," "architectural technician," "registered building technologist" and "registered building technician."

I raise that issue at this point in time because there is a bit of history to this bill. We did in fact go before a committee. In June of this year, we went before the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of dealing with whether or not section 9 was in conflict with the Ontario Association of Architects Act, which is a piece of general legislation.

As a result of the ruling by that committee, section 9 was amended and there's a subsection 9(3) that has been inserted to meet the demands and the ruling of that committee. That section has been accepted by the applicants and they are happy with that section, and that is the section that is before you today. That just deals with the historical situation in which this group finds itself. It is using the terms "architectural technologist" and "architectural technician," and that has been recognized under a piece of general legislation. They have been using that term since 1962, so they are a very unique group in terms of the title they are using.

Those are the highlights and the important issues on the bill. It's our understanding that there may be concerns with respect to section 9, and that's why we bring that to your attention at this time.

I will pass it on now to Mr Hornblow to tell you a little more about the association.

Mr David Hornblow: Thank you, committee members, for having us come here today to present to you our bill. The association has existed since 1962. The association is built up of students, interns and technologists alike. I've been an active member of the organization since I was a student at Fanshawe College. I was active as a local member in the chapters, and I was an active member on council.

This association is a very progressive and a very proactive organization in that I was the very first student liaison chairperson for the organization, which allowed for students to have representation across the province on our council. They currently have a voting right on our council, so they have a say in how the future looks for architectural technology and building technology in the industry.

In regard to that, I mentioned that our organization has representation right across the province. Currently we have eight chapters across the province in various locations, such as London, Toronto, east greater Toronto, we have chapters in Sudbury, Kingston, Belleville and a variety of locations across the province, from north to south to east to west.

Our membership are sought out throughout the world. Just this summer, a company from the Bahamas came to Ontario looking for architectural technologists. We have membership that is spread throughout the world. We have membership that's been recognized as architects both within the Bahamas and Jamaica, to name a few.

We are, like I said, a very proactive organization. We have implemented certain things that other organizations are just now implementing. We have our own stamp. To hold that stamp, you must have liability insurance. We've also implemented a certified professional development program, which ensures that our current members who are technologists maintain their status and represent themselves and the public and the clientele they represent to the fullest and that they have the most up-to-date tools.

We're involved in all 12 community colleges at a variety of levels. Our membership are teachers and building officials. Our membership work for the ministries, both federally and provincially. Our membership is spread throughout this province. In the 12 colleges we have representation both at the student level and as teachers as well. We also have the students represented, having their own voice. We also have the membership themselves, on their own boards or councils, give input on what the students are going to be taught today and what the students are going to be taught tomorrow.

Our organization has been involved with Ontario building code regulations and will continue to be heavily involved in that. Our industry is not limited just to a few but it recognizes all. Our organization has gone to great lengths to make sure that we recognize all bodies and all persons. We're not an exclusive club by any means. We're a grass-roots organization.

In a nutshell, I hope and my membership that sits behind me, which is just the tip of the iceberg, hopes that you will see fit to pass this regulation as it is written today because we have gone to great lengths in consultation with the government to ensure that the public's wellbeing is looked after and that the membership as a whole is looked after.

I'd like to turn it over to Peter Adams, my executive director.

1040

Mr Peter Adams: Good morning, gentlemen and ladies. I'd like to thank all of the members present for taking the time to hear us today. What we're asking for today is very important to us.

I realize that in looking at this, it's hard to gain an appreciation in the space of an hour for what we do, but we're out there in your communities. We're your constituents. We're also the people in your communities who are -- not myself; I'm the executive director, but our membership in the greater province are in positions in municipalities, approving building code changes, working for municipalities in various occupations, making sure that the province progresses, in essence that the changes that need to be made to our physical structures happen.

I would like to draw your attention to the folders that we handed out to everyone today. Those are letters of support from across the province from different individuals, satisfied customers, individuals who are attesting to the fact that the work that our architectural technologists and technicians do is competent and valued.

I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact of the great volume of people who came today. These people took the time off from their positions to come today to show you physically that it matters to them, that this is important. When they return home today, they have to tell their families what was accomplished and what happened as far as their livelihoods were concerned.

Not to overdramatize the point, we felt it was important that as many members who could take the time off -- and they're from across the province, from London, from Belleville, from Ottawa -- be here today to show you physically that it's very important to them that this proceed.

I won't take up any more of your time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I certainly hope that if there are any questions at all that we can answer, we can get to those.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Adams. I wish to thank the applicants. At this time if you would vacate the witness table, we have interested parties who wish to speak to this. I would ask all interested parties as well to keep your comments as brief as possible, given the number of people who may wish to speak.

I call forward first Mr Anthony Griffiths, president of the Ontario Association of Architects, for some brief comments.

Mr Anthony Griffiths: My name is Tony Griffiths. I am the president of the Ontario Association of Architects. I'm very happy to be here before you today.

May I introduce Mr Brian Watkinson, who is the executive director of the Ontario Association of Architects, and Mr John Brunner, of Brunner and Lundy, Barristers and Solicitors, who are our legal counsel. I will take about five minutes, no more.

We have submitted a detailed brief stating our concerns in some detail. Mr Prins, I think, has those in front of him. Perhaps he will distribute them to you. I would urge you to read them if you can spare the time.

Established over 100 years ago, in 1889, the Ontario Association of Architects is the licensing and regulatory body for the architectural profession in Ontario. All 2,500 architects in Ontario are licensed by the OAA.

Ontario's Architects Act gives us the responsibility to regulate the practice of architecture in order that the public interest may be served and protected. It is because of that statutory responsibility that we feel we must oppose this bill. It is controversial; it impacts on the public interest; it has not received sufficient consultation and ministerial input to proceed.

I would like to highlight some of our key concerns. Our concerns are as follows; there are five major ones. Others are in the more detailed brief.

(1) The Ontario Association of Architects takes the position, supported by opinion of legal counsel, that the proposed private bill is in direct conflict with the Architects Act. It has the effect of amending public legislation and cannot proceed unless section 9, giving exclusive use of the listed titles, is deleted.

(2) It must be understood that the AATO is pursuing this legislative solution in order to bypass the Attorney General's process for dealing with this issue. In that context, there is significant public interest related to this private bill.

(3) It is the view of the provincial bodies responsible for regulating the practice of architecture in Canada as a whole that the qualification and standards for this evolving paraprofession must be developed on a national scale, coordinated with those standards now in place for the architectural profession. This bill would bypass that imperative.

(4) The AATO bill does not perform well under the government's red tape test for regulations. It is deficient in the following ways:

(a) The bill is not necessary to permit the AATO to govern and discipline its members.

(b) Members of the AATO already have the right to use the titles "architectural technologist" and "architectural technician."

(c) There is no sound rationale supporting the proposal to make use of these titles exclusive to the members of the AATO -- the AATO acknowledges that others have equivalent qualification.

(d) The qualifications of individual members of AATO vary broadly. Qualifications for membership in AATO are established by internal bylaw with no public overview. This is a matter of some concern when considered in the context of the Ontario building code amendments and the AATO's efforts to obtain full practice rights.

(e) Such exclusive use would add cost to small businesses by requiring duplicate memberships.

(5) The AATO's position is that the exceptions currently included under section 9 would not apply to intern architects. This is a key issue. We do not accept their position and most certainly do not accept it from a legal perspective, the clear intention of the AATO to force intern architects into joining the AATO whether they want to or not.

We respectfully recommend, therefore, that there need be no further consideration of this bill, which is controversial, affects the public interest and imposes a needless regulation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Griffiths. We will now go to the next interested party. We will go through this list and then entertain questions from the committee. I would now ask Mr Robert Mitchell, special assistant, Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists, to approach the witness table.

1050

Mr Robert Mitchell: Mr Chairman, thank you very much for your kind welcome earlier. May I say that the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists is pleased to be here today to make its presentation regarding the AATO act.

Mr Bruce Wells will be making our presentation, and with us is Mr Angelo Innocente, who is president-elect of our association.

Mr Bruce Wells: I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak with you. I'd also like to pass on the apologies of our president for not being here. Our president, Mr Fred Lougheed, is, needless to say, a volunteer. He's a member of the working staff of the city of Burlington. Members around this table are well aware that Burlington is in the GTA and he's a very busy man these days. Indeed, he has some political masters who are demanding his time today.

I would also like to tell you that our legal counsel, Mr John Swan, from Aird and Berlis, is not here today. Mr Swan is not here because I did not ask him to come. He is available to Mr Twohig, your legislative counsel. Some of you who are in the legal profession may have known John Swan as a teacher in the legal profession. John happens to be teaching a course at McGill University this semester, and I didn't think it necessary to bring him up and have him cancel his classes at McGill to be here today. If that is necessary, in time that can be done.

I'd like to take five minutes and talk to you a little bit about the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists, which is known as OACETT, and then I'd like to take three or four minutes and talk to you specifically about the AATO act.

I'd like to start out at the beginning and say to you this: that OACETT is not opposing this particular act. We are making recommendations for some changes in the legislation, but this association is not opposing the AATO act.

I would just also make a few comments to say that I endorse everything that Mr Hornblow said about the members of AATO. AATO is a first-rate organization of high quality professionals, and they have an extremely good track record in this province. Having said that, I don't always agree with their executive, but let me be very clear in saying that this is a quality group of people, and this association is not opposing that act.

OACETT was established by the Association of Professional Engineers in Ontario at the request of the province of Ontario in 1957. It was established because at that particular time there were a large number of people with technology backgrounds coming to this province from Europe and there were no guidelines or certification or standards involved. OACETT was established initially to address those issues and to also look at this newly emerging professional group in terms of its recognition in the workplace.

We have been involved in the development of standards and the certification against those standards since 1957. Mr Mitchell has -- and I'm not sure whether it all was passed out to you, but I would particularly have you take note of the national standard in building technologies that OACETT has established through the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, in which we're very actively involved, and also the civil engineering technology and civil engineering technicians' standard, which have been established in the province of Ontario, which also deals with building and in which OACETT has been and continues to be a very active member.

We certify people in 13 disciplines, in some 64 subdisciplines, and within our civil structure and within our applied science structure we get into a large number of people in the building, construction, structural and related areas. Indeed, we probably have more members of OACETT in that particular area than AATO has in total membership.

I should also point out that OACETT has been working very closely with Professional Engineers Ontario. We've just done a very major brief for fundamental review in Professional Engineers Ontario. This is an area that I'll make a couple of comments on before I go on.

We have also worked very closely with the Ontario Association of Architects. We have joint executive meetings with them -- had one about a month ago; expect to have another one -- and we have found them to be a quality group of people to work with. We also work in this province with the Ontario land surveyors. Indeed, the land surveyors are moving out of the technician/technology business, moving it into OACETT, and we are going to work jointly with them in terms of development programs.

I'd also note that we have worked very closely with the consulting engineers in Ontario. We sit on the sectoral council that the province of Ontario has set up for the consulting engineering community. Professional engineers have two members, consulting engineers have two members, OACETT has two members, the chairman is Oskar Sidvaldason, the president of Acres International, and the province of Ontario has two members on it. Your assistant deputy minister in economic development, trade and tourism, Peter Sadlier-Brown, is your senior representative on that group.

Interestingly enough, when I leave this hearing one of the things that I will be doing tied into that process is helping PEO and CEO to set up a special kind of placement unit to help to place people out of the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Environment and Energy who are being downsized out. We're going to try to do a job to help them move into areas there.

I want to make one final comment before I move into the specific piece of legislation. I want to make this because I think you and I will be seeing more and more of each other over the next year or two. The major issue in this particular area has nothing to do with the OACETT act, the AATO act, the PEO act. These are all nice little silos all out looking internally in, looking after their own little piece of turf. What we really need to be looking at is the necessity to recognize that in the engineering, applied science, design profession occupations are beginning to overlap and integrate, and what the technologist does and what the professional engineer does and what the chemist does and what the mathematician does and what the design professional does and what the architect does mesh into a kind of process. What that basically means is that the governance structures that exist in this province today to regulate this kind of activity don't make any sense any more.

The major issue that this committee really needs to be thinking about, and I'm on my soap box a little bit, is the issue of harmonization and how to pull this all together so that, frankly, over the next 10 and 15 years the public welfare is looked after and Ontario becomes competitive in terms of working in the marketplace.

We have done a major brief on that, Towards the Future. Mr Mitchell has copies of it. I don't know if it's been passed out, but I hope each of you will take it. We did this as part of our effort with professional engineers in terms of looking towards the future, and I think really that's where we need to be looking rather than at various areas of turf.

Having said that, let me go to our brief, which you have seen. I might add that this brief was initially written in draft in February 1996, when the initial legislation came out.

I have mentioned where OACETT certifies members. I have indicated to you that OACETT certifies a large number of members in our civil and applied science disciplines and that a large number of those people are involved in building, building-related and construction activities. They're chief building officials, they're building inspectors, they're involved in construction activity. They're also in the consulting engineering field, where most people don't recognize some 40% of the employees in the engineering community in this province are technicians and technologists, and that of course is why we're so actively involved.

1100

We are concerned about the legislation as it exists, and I should add that our lawyer, Mr Swan from Aird and Berlis, is concerned. Our concern is that section 12, which relates back to subsection 9(2), might well make it an offence for the members of OACETT to in effect do what this legislation, through the OACETT act, and what OACETT, through its designation of titles, has allowed them to do. Our suggestion is that there is a problem in that particular area that isn't clear and that needs to be addressed.

We also are concerned about the term "registered building technologist," not because we don't believe that the architectural technologist should have the right to some title as a building technologist, but we recognize that we have a major role to play in that particular area. Accordingly, we have suggested to you that there might be a possibility to change that particular legislation and use the term "registered architectural building technologist." As our brief indicates, that allows OACETT to continue with the area that we have been involved in in terms of more the engineering building technology.

Let me just sum up by actually reading to you the recommendations that we have to this legislation. I'm then going to turn it over to Mr Innocente, who's had a chance to look at those drafts that I haven't, and let him comment on them. He didn't know that probably, but I haven't had a chance to read them.

Our recommendation to this committee is as follows, and it's on page 5 of our brief, section E, "Recommendation."

OACETT does not recommend that the committee not proceed with consideration of the AATO Act; it merely invites the committee to consider the large issue that has been mentioned. That's harmonization, and I think you need to think of these things in that context.

OACETT recommends to the committee:

(a) That the AATO Act be amended to provide that the terms "registered building technologist" and "registered building technician" in subsection 9(1) become instead "registered architectural building technologist" and "registered architectural building technician".

(b) That section 9 of the AATO Act contain a further saving provision stating:

"9(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a person is not guilty of an offence under this act if he or she, being a member in good standing of the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists or any successor body, uses the designations "architecture," "architectural," "building technologist" or "building technician" as part of a qualification or designation properly conferred on him or her by that association."

Those are my comments. I thank you for listening. I would just ask Mr Innocente perhaps to comment on those which I haven't had a chance to read. I just got them, as you know, when I sat down.

Mr Angelo Innocente: The suggestions that Bruce had indicated before me are not recommended motions at this time, but if they are put forth by the committee then we will deal with them at that time.

Let me just say as the president-elect of the association and as the chair of our government affairs committee, I have a responsibility to attend this committee meeting on behalf of our members. We register members as technicians and technologists in the architectural discipline and in the building sciences and engineering discipline. We would be remiss if we were not here to ask for protection of the current titles that we now enjoy.

In reference to the proposed amendments we've indicated in our brief, if a motion is made by AATO or members of the committee to endorse those, certainly we would have a look at them and support them. Otherwise, as Bruce had indicated, we have no objections to the act other than the protection of the titles that we now enjoy.

The Chair: I have one other interested party, Mr Kerry Traynor of Fanshawe College. I ask Mr Traynor to approach the table.

Mr Kerry Traynor: I would just like to make a couple of points in one area that was brought to your attention via the OAA. It has to do with red tape. The gentleman from the OAA made mention that this just increases the red tape that goes about at both the municipal and provincial levels. The association would like to clarify that point in that we have evidence in our association that at the municipal level we help to clear red tape. Because of the professionalism and efficiency of our members, we have documentation that proves that we have decreased the number of days in which an applicant has to go through the building permit process. We have municipalities telling us that our members have provided professional documentation which speeds up or increases the speed of the process.

At the same time I make mention of the second point I'd like to make with respect to red tape. The gentleman from the OAA made mention that the title is already protected. In actual fact it may be recognized under the Architects Act, but what ends up happening is that red tape is increased simply because our association then has to liaise with the OAA to protect the public and bring people who are using the title up on charges or to be investigated, and whether they decided to be cooperative or not, we are stuck, we are limited in how we protect that title and protect the public.

The last point I want to make is that we have evidence and documentation to provide the fact that with our members and their level of professionalism we are there for the public. We have increased public awareness of who we are and of what happens in the architectural and building industry. Because our members are professional and highly qualified and have gone through an in-depth process to become accredited, the level of service has increased and the public has been well served by that.

In summary, with this act we're decreasing the amount of red tape; we're not increasing it.

1110

The Chair: I think there's a final interested party, Mr David Hodgeson, if he would approach the microphone.

Mr David Hodgeson: Mr Chair, I wonder if it would be all right if the legal counsel addressed one technical issue, and then I could just respond to one other matter. Would that be permissible?

The Chair: Your legal counsel?

Mr Hodgeson: Virginia.

The Chair: Oh, I see. You're with that group there?

Mr Hodgeson: Yes.

The Chair: Which group are you representing, first of all?

Mr Hodgeson: I'm with the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario today.

The Chair: So your group has already presented.

Mr Hodgeson: They have.

The Chair: Do you wish to make a further comment, something that was forgotten, or is this an amendment you're suggesting?

Mr Hodgeson: If I may, I believe there is just one matter that was brought up during a submission by the Ontario Association of Architects with respect to process. Just by way of background, I've been with the building industry about 20 years. I have the pleasure of being the former director of the Ontario buildings branch with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I was in charge of the building code there. I also had the pleasure of being the executive director of the Ontario Association of Architects at one point in time, so I've come full circle.

By way of process, one thing I read in the submission by the Ontario Association of Architects is that there is a bigger picture here, and that's true. The Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario is trying to do three things:

(1) Take control of its future. In doing that, they would like to have a private member's bill that gives them the right to call themselves what they are: architectural technologists and architectural technicians.

(2) Define a scope of practice down the road in conjunction and in consultation with the Ontario Association of Architects. To that degree they have initiated contact with the association for well over two years in trying to set up this consultative process to determine what architects should do and what technologists should do and what neither one should do, perhaps.

(3) Finally, they're trying to enhance public safety through the building code. There is an area that is now allowed to be designed by any person, and they feel, as others in the building industry do, that it's inappropriate to let me -- I'm not trained in building and design -- or my mother or my sister design public buildings that are under 600 square feet and can be designed by anybody. This belief is shared by the Ontario Building Officials Association, the fire chiefs, a number of people who are in the industry.

My point, in adding some light to the consultative process, is that yes, we are involved with the architects' association in these ongoing discussions about scope of practice, but in the interim plumbing inspectors, for example, have the right to title as the Canadian plumbing inspectors or certified plumbing inspectors, engineering technologists have the right to their title, as do a number of other professions. You have to understand that architectural technologists have come a long way since they were created in 1965. Just as the building industry has changed a lot, so have they, and they're prepared, they're competent, they're design professionals and they are now trying to take control of their future. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I understand that the Ontario Association of Architects wishes to come back again, and I think we'll do this before we get to the committee for questions, but I want to get to questions. The Ontario Association of Architects wishes to return to the witness table to suggest a motion for an amendment. I want to qualify that by saying that only members of this standing committee make motions or amendments.

Mr John Brunner: Mr Chairman, I'm John Brunner, legal counsel for the Ontario Association of Architects. You're being given a handout, which is a proposal for one of your members to put a motion forward to amend subsection 9(3) of the bill.

Let me preface this by saying that this bill was in front of you in June this year, and as a result of the objection of the Ontario Association of Architects and advice you received from counsel for the Attorney General and Susan Klein, your legislative counsel, that section 9 was in conflict with the Architects Act, the public statute, the matter was voted down.

There is still the following problem with subsection 9(3): Intern architects, under the Architects Act, serving their internship use the designation "architectural technologist" and "architectural technician." They occupy positions like that in municipalities and so on. If the bill does not protect intern architects, as its present wording does not, it means that intern architects, while they are serving their internship and before they are licensed as full-fledged architects, would have to join the AATO and pay dues to them.

As a result we are proposing respectfully and requesting that the words "including an intern architect" be added to paragraph 2 in subsection 9(3) of the bill. The wording, in accordance with this handout, was prepared by Susan Klein and is most appropriate. We respectfully ask that you not exclude intern architects, that they be protected from having to compulsorily join the AATO while they're serving their internship. This is an important matter for this association. I respectfully request that and I thank you for your indulgence.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brunner. Before we leave this section of the agenda, do any other associations wish to suggest a motion at this time? I understand some other motions are being reproduced.

At this point, seeing no other requests from other interested parties, and before we go to questions from the committee, I would ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Derwyn Shea, for comments on behalf of the provincial government.

Mr Shea: I think we understand the purpose of the bill. Bills very similar to this have come forward to the committee on a number of occasions. Since 1985 there have been over 20 bills of similar nature. Not all of them go through with considerable ease. Very often they have to be reshaped and structured through the discussions, and as we've heard today, the bill was brought forward to another committee, there was some concern the Attorney General's ministry had at the time and it was withdrawn to deal with that objection.

The Attorney General's ministry is now harbouring no further objections. We have canvassed other ministries, and no other ministry is expressing objections. More appropriately, they indicate that no position is reflected on the request for this bill. I think the ministries are asking this committee to be seized of the matter, listen to the issue and make the appropriate recommendations.

In my own reading of the debate it seems as though the quintessential issue revolves around section 9. That seems to be where there is a great deal of flashpoint between the two associations involved in this issue. I hope we might focus upon that to begin with in questioning. Otherwise we may be here for some time.

Clearly the request here is that the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario is asking the right to do what other groups have done: confirm the titles they currently use and exercise self-discipline and do what others have done; that is, establish standards of operations and qualifications for their membership and limit the use of certain titles. Therein there is some question that we've heard from the architects, particularly as it applies to intern architects.

Other than that, this issue is quite consistent with other applications that have been brought forward, and there are no other objections raised by any ministry. At this point, since it has come back to us again, any objections of the Attorney General's ministry seem now to have been resolved to the satisfaction of that ministry and no ministry is taking position. I also have with me at the table, anticipating any questions concerning the Attorney General's ministry, John Twohig, who will be able to answer questions from legal counsel's point of view, particularly in light of any comments that might be made about the Attorney General's position on this application, attempting to go around the edges of procedures. That does not seem to be substantiated at this point. I'll leave it there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Shea. We now go to the committee for questions to the applicants, to the parliamentary assistant or to any interested parties present in the room. First question, Mr Hastings.

1120

Mr Hastings: I'll leave my questions till the end, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, I just want to make sure I understand. The bill doesn't change the scope of practice, right?

Mr Shea: No.

Mr Bisson: Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

Mr Pettit: It seems to me that between OACETT and the OAA, unless I misinterpret, we have some diametrically opposed thoughts. My question for the gentleman from the OAA is, what is the problem, what is your major concern here with the use of the titles "registered building technologist" and/or "registered building technician" when, at the same time, OACETT has a motion to actually add the word "architectural" to either of those titles. Is there some form of a little turf war going on between the groups here? Can you clarify that for us? Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the surface it would appear that there's a little bit of petty protectionism or turf wars going on.

Mr Brunner: I appreciate that. In answer to the question posed, I don't think the OAA has any particular problem with respect to the designation "registered building technologist" or "registered building technician" unless someone is going to join the word "architectural" with it. But we have no position on that, on paragraphs 3 and 4 in subsection 9(1), sir.

Mr Pettit: It says on page 8 that there's no justification for the inclusion of the two titles "registered building technologist" and "registered building technician".

Mr Brunner: It's the architectural technologist and architectural technician that that's directed to, sir.

Mr Pettit: All right.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Mr Sheehan: I also heard you say something about setting standards.

Mr Brunner: No, that wasn't me, sir, about setting standards. It may have been Mr Griffiths in his presentation.

Mr Sheehan: Okay. But it did come out of the architects. Who sets the standards in your business?

Mr Brunner: Can I help? That's done under the Architects Act by regulation. It has to be done by regulation, which has to be approved by the Attorney General and by the Lieutenant Governor in council. So it's done by regulation.

Mr Sheehan: On recommendation from the board of directors?

Mr Brunner: That's right. We would do the first draft in consultation with the Attorney General, it would have to be passed by the Lieutenant Governor in council and become a regulation. All standards and requirements are set out in regulation form so that the government has an input as to what goes in there. We can't do it on our own, as opposed to the AATO which wants to do it on its own. We have to seek approval from the government under the statute.

Mr Sheehan: Can you enlighten me on one other thing? What is the significance of this term "registered"? I'm getting a little confused about this.

Mr Brunner: You mean the "registered building technologist"?

Mr Sheehan: It seems to be hung up on this word "registered" architectural technologist. I'm trying to find out --

Mr Brunner: It's what is required, sir. There has to be a registration. You have to become registered with the AATO in order to use those designations.

Mr Sheehan: So that's it.

Mr Brunner: That's right.

Mr Sheehan: Does the amendment that you've filed including the intern architects satisfy your concerns?

Mr Brunner: It satisfies us in terms that it protects the intern architects.

Mr Sheehan: And avoids the double membership?

Mr Brunner: Yes, that is correct, for intern architects.

Mr Griffiths: It does not, Mr Sheehan, with respect, address the question of registration standards.

Mr Sheehan: I understand that, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Mr Griffiths: No.

Mr Sheehan: Lastly, can you comment on this amendment? Who brought out this last amendment, the handwritten one, Mr Chairman, where they want "paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 9(1) be struck out and the following substituted...`registered architectural building technologist'"?

The Chair: I'll ask the clerk to confirm that.

The Clerk of the Committee: That's from the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists. Those are amendments that they have proposed.

The Chair: Do you have a question for them?

Mr Sheehan: Can you enlighten us? We've got a bunch of terminology here and --

Mr Wells: The recommendations that I believe you have, and I don't have a copy of them, I believe are addressed in our brief, clauses 14(a) and (b), where we have suggested some recommendations to the act which we think clarify it and protect the membership of those who are involved in this from being in a position where they might be committing an offence to use the titles and designations that are there. We did not actually draft these, but my sense from reading them is that they satisfy, if not 100%, a fair number of the needs that we were concerned about. I would think that from our point of view, if that bill was passed with these amendments, we would not be unhappy.

Mr Sheehan: Why would you be unhappy if it does not include these amendments?

Mr Wells: Why would I not be happy if it was passed this way? I can't sit here in front of this committee, which has a responsibility for legislation and integrity in Ontario, and say to you that I'm prepared to see you pass a bill that makes it possible for 2,500 of my members to possibly commit an offence because they are simply following what you allowed OACETT to do through the OACETT Act in 1984. What I am asking is that you clarify that so that that can't happen.

Mr Sheehan: Maybe I'm going to have to ask counsel to talk on that. I've got one last question. I think it was from over here. I don't know the gentleman's name, but they were talking about --

The Chair: Which association is your question to?

Mr Sheehan: I think it's to the people who were proposing the changes, the bill.

The Chair: The applicants?

Mr Sheehan: The applicants.

The Chair: Could I ask the applicants to approach the witness table?

Mr O'Toole: Mr Chair, if I could move that we have one member from each group at the table, it would allow us to integrate the dialogue. Let's have one from the architects, the technicians, OACETT and some innocent bystander. There are four chairs there.

The Chair: There may well be more interested parties than named.

Mr Sheehan: I think it was this gentleman over here with the good tie -- I hate to tell you that -- who said that they have documented proof that they, through the application of their expertise and their skills and their method of operating, have shortened the process of obtaining approvals when somebody is trying to build a building or get a project through the planning process. I would like him to elaborate on that, if he would, whoever made the comment.

The Chair: We ask for a response.

Mr Sheehan: Your tie's not as nice as his.

Mr Traynor: I'm sorry; I was dressing conservatively.

The Chair: Mr Traynor, what association are you representing?

Mr Traynor: I'm with the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario.

Mr Sheehan: All right, we've got the right organization.

Mr Traynor: The organization I was referring to is that we have a letter here from the corporation of the city of Brampton. It was given to us and it's signed by Mr Percy Hornblow, who is the chief building official for that municipality. He has made a number of comments that endorse our association and our professionalism. I'm not sure whether this was distributed or not. No, it was not.

Mr Traynor: If you would like, I could read it.

Mr Sheehan: Please.

Mr Traynor: "Please convey my thanks to Mr John Hastings for taking this time to allow me to voice my opinion on the above subject matter. I would further add that I am not a member of the AATO, nor an employee of the AATO. However, I would like to provide support for the legislative changes before the House, for which I understand that Mr Hastings is the sponsor of said changes.

"My first remark is in the area of training and competency of the members in their certification process. As a guest lecturer on codes, acts and regulations, I've had time to observe said association and feel competent to the professionalism exhibited by their association. Further, they recognize the need to continue to upgrade their skills through a maintenance program.

"Secondly, in observing the members in the real world of design and application for building permits as a chief building official, I've had direct knowledge of their level of skills and would relate that it is on par with the other professionals in the construction industry.

"My last comment is in the area of building code administration. With the association receiving favourable support by the legislation, it would provide for another choice for the consumer. It would also provide for a level of competency for the client base to choose from, thereby a cost-effective approach for the small builders and contractors and home owners, should they choose.

"In closing, it would also provide to the municipal building department an assurance and quality tool, thereby reducing delays in processing time. I have also been assured that the named association will take appropriate action to weed out the bad apples, should it be found necessary, again providing a level of assurance the marketplace requires of today's professionals.

"Again, many thanks for allowing me this opportunity to voice my opinion on such an important issue, which I can support wholeheartedly.

"I remain,

"Percy Hornblow"

1130

Mr Sheehan: What he is saying is it's not so much that you shorten the process; it's just giving another option to the public.

Mr Traynor: I believe what he is saying is that it is giving another option to the public, but because of the professionalism, it is making the process more efficient; the municipalities don't have to keep returning documents to be revised so that they are up to Ontario building code standards.

Mr Sheehan: Returning to whom, is the question.

Mr Traynor: To the client, to the design professional who is producing the documents.

Mr Sheehan: One last question: Would the legal counsel comment on these name changes? I understand the one that's put forward by including intern architects; that's an easy one. But I was kind of lost on "registered architectural building technologist." What difference is this going to make?

Ms Susan Klein: Do you want me to speak to this?

Mr Sheehan: If you would.

Ms Klein: Sure. So you're talking about the motions that the OASSET has put forward?

Mr Sheehan: I'm talking about the significance of those suggested changes.

Mr O'Toole: The word "architect" is changed.

Mr Sheehan: Is that it? It's suggested the word "architect" is the problem, but if you looked in the act they're talking about, aren't they already allowed to use it? Or am I reading in the wrong spot?

Mr O'Toole: No, "building" has been substituted for "architect." That's the key.

Mr Sheehan: I see. Okay. Is that the problem?

Ms Klein: I can't hear; I'm sorry.

Mr Sheehan: I gather there is some protection allowed to the architects to use the word under their act.

Ms Klein: "Architect," yes.

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Ms Klein: These motions are being put forward by OASSET, not by the architects.

Mr Sheehan: I understand that, but will this conflict with the rights or exclusivity granted by the Architects Act?

Ms Klein: The one that adds the word "architectural" before "building technologist" and "building technician," the one with paragraphs 3 and 4 in the middle -- these are written out here at the committee in response to the recommendations that were put forward by OASSET. I'm not quite sure whether putting the word "architectural" in there would or wouldn't be a conflict with the Architects Act. I'd be interested in hearing what the architects' association had to say about whether they thought that was a conflict. But this is kind of new to me and there is a question whether putting "architectural" in there might lead someone to believe that you are practising architecture.

Mr Sheehan: That's my question. Can you get the answer, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Yes. Could we perhaps continue with questions and maybe the answer will be forthcoming?

Mr Sheehan: Okay, yes.

The Chair: Mr O'Toole was next on the roster.

Mr O'Toole: To the groups this morning, I see this as purely a discussion about exclusivity of the use of the term "architect" and its subdefinitions, "technologist" or "technician." That's entirely the whole case. If I read Bill Pr40 and I look at the specific section 9, there's a subtlety of the terminology that changes here, which is a significant problem for me, and that's 9(1)3 and 9(1)4. You've exempted the use of the term "architect." Do you understand what I'm saying? If you look at this whole thing and everything else as the qualifiers, you define yourself as an "architect technologist" or "technician." The word "architect" is the exclusivity term. That's the OAA and your own particular group, the technicians' group.

I can understand OASSET's requirement to differentiate between the generalized term "registered building technician" and "registered architectural building technician." You see, that's the whole, entire argument. So I cannot support the current act without the amendment, because what you're trying to do is to establish the legitimacy of the term "architect" and its attendant definitions. Once that's established, is that not the attendant argument? There are two opposing, and the OAA members are here. Is that not really the argument totally? There are some other kinds of technical details here, which I'll get to. Is that it, OAA's term? You don't have a problem with the architect technician using the term, as long as it's used always with "technician" or "technologist." You don't have a problem with that, right?

Mr Brunner: I think, in fairness, it should be pointed out that it's not just the title "architect."

Mr O'Toole: There's a little more to it.

Mr Brunner: Sorry.

Mr O'Toole: In this section 9 we're dealing with -- that's the problem one -- it's ambiguous.

Mr Brunner: I agree with you, sir. It's not just the title "architect" that's protected under the Architects Act, but it's any addition to or abbreviation of the title "architect," any occupational designation or a term, title, addition or description that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of architecture. All that is the exclusive right under the Architects Act of the Ontario Association of Architects.

Mr O'Toole: That's what we're really attempting to change.

Mr Brunner: Exactly.

Mr O'Toole: Okay. Now, that's established, that's what this bill is about.

I have another question which is fundamental to this debate for me. It was raised by the OAA. I think it's an extremely valid question. The composition of the board itself, those people who legitimize the standards, who says this differentiation has been established between architects and this new group called architect technologist/technician?

I'm assured by the OAA that they told me that there are ministry regulations and defined by the Lieutenant Governor etc, all this kind of very heavy material. I want to know from the technicians' group that says this is a subgroup -- David, you're probably the best one. OAA has got this code of principles, code of behaviour, definitions. Who in the public or in the public eye of the government legitimizes your code of ethics and behaviour and professional standards, just you as a group? Who else on your board acquiesces on behalf of the public?

Mr Hornblow: Right now there are several boards within my organization.

Mr O'Toole: Are they all technologists?

Mr Hornblow: No.

Mr O'Toole: Are they the general public?

Mr Hornblow: On our certification board there are two members of the OAA.

Mr O'Toole: Two OAA are on your certification board?

Mr Hornblow: Our certification board is in charge of reviewing the membership that comes in, is in charge of seeing that their credentials are met, the standards within the organization. It's within our bylaws that we have two OAA members present at our certification board. They've been an active member of our organization, on our certification board, from its inception. Our standards are quite high.

Mr O'Toole: That answers my question. Mr Chair, thank you for your indulgence. I think I've got a new body being constituted that has some representation of the general public, legal and otherwise, to say, "These are our code of ethics and standards." We're deciding here if this bill entitles them to use exclusively the term "architect" in conjunction with "technologist" or "building inspector."

Therefore, my final question is with respect to OACETT's proposed amendment, which is inserting in subsection 9(1), paragraphs 3 and 4, the term "architect." Do you agree with those amendments?

Mr Hornblow: To be honest with you, I do not.

Mr O'Toole: I've got to clarify this. If I left subsection 9(1), paragraphs 3 and 4, as is, it would appear to me that would be a further infringement on another registering group, a group of building technologists or whatever this OACETT group does. I'm not certain who they legitimize or certify. But it would appear that it's going a little bit beyond the interpretation of "architect."

Mr Hornblow: To be honest with you, I'd like to try to answer that question twofold, if you don't mind, if you have the patience. Virginia is also going to answer some of the legal aspects. But from a layman's point of view, what OACETT is currently doing under their act they do not have the right to do under their act. Right now under their act there are only four titles they're entitled to use, just as we only have the four titles to use.

1140

In their submission to you, or their brief, they mentioned that there's certified engineering technician, certified technician, certified engineering technologist and applied science technologist and the corresponding initials. That is in their act. I totally agree with that aspect of it.

Currently within their act they do not have the authority to say what they say they're doing under the Architects Act, because the architects are the ones who control the word "architecture" in the province of Ontario currently. Us accepting their amendment in conjunction with any other changes is actually using my bill to amend their bill and amend the Architects Act, and we're not permitted to do that. Our submission to you today is strictly --

Mr O'Toole: Okay. I understand. You've made a very good point, and it's important to establish that you have taken issue with the OAA, really, to say, "Can we subdivide ourselves into technicians and technologists?"

Mr Hornblow: No.

Mr O'Toole: The other issue of OACETT's legitimacy of using the term is still with OAA. I would ask them: Is OAA -- if I may, through the Chair -- Tony, if you could tell me, is what Mr Hornblow telling us correct, that they have been in exemption of use of the term "architect"?

Mr Griffiths: Under the Architects Act, they have that --

Mr Bisson: Excuse me, can we get him on a mike?

The Chair: I don't think he can be picked up on Hansard. Also, the applicants want to finish their response, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: David is making the accusation, if I may, that the current OACETT group is in fact in violation or contravention of the Architects Act. That's fairly significant.

The Chair: Do the applicants wish to finish their response?

Mr Hastings: There are certain things that need to be dealt with before this committee votes on this bill and gets the whole focus back on why we're here today. Primarily why we're here today under Bill Pr40, under my sponsorship and in cooperation with the Association of Architectural Technologists, is to create a body that deals with the construction design of buildings under 600 square feet. That's one of the issues.

We're not here to debate whether another group ought to piggyback, with all due respect to the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists. They are making proposals and amendments to this act that they have not advertised. This particular group that I'm sponsoring came here last June. There were some objections dealing with the way it was set out in the bill. The Attorney General's ministry dealt with those objections. The association went back to Virginia MacLean at Cassels Brock and Blackwell and made the appropriate changes so that they would be in agreement with the legal services group in the Attorney General's ministry. That's what this bill is about today.

There are other things that we could get into debate on about red tape and whether there was any consultation between this respective group and the OAA, but that has been left to other deputants and they have straightened out those things.

The primary focus today is whether in fact you as a committee are going to approve the bill as is. I can tell you that the Association of Architectural Technologists is not in any way, shape or form accepting any amendments to this particular bill. The group has gone out and addressed, in good faith, what the concerns of the Ministry of the Attorney General were that were brought previously by the other groups last June. That's what the primary task, I believe, of this particular group is today.

I'd like, with all due respect, to allow Virginia MacLean to explain and straighten out some of these confusions that have arisen as to the definitions and why we're here as well.

Miss MacLean: I will deal with the Architects Act and then I will deal with the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technologists and Technicians act.

Dealing first with the Architects Act, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we were before the standing committee on legislation in June 1996. We advertised in August 1995, and we worked with the OAA from then till June, and we found that we had one problem, and that was whether or not this bill, this private act, was amending a piece of government legislation, the Architects Act.

At that meeting, Mr Lundy, who also represented the OAA -- and I'm quoting from Hansard -- said: "Let me also be perfectly clear that the Ontario Association of Architects does not wish to block the passage of a bill like this. In fact, we have made one proposal which will address the concern, a four-line proposal which we've asked to be inserted in the act and as presently drafted would address the association's concern."

Just as a matter of comment, we were astounded that a brief was submitted to you today. We had not seen that brief, and this is the first opportunity we've had to respond.

With respect to that amendment, we have received and we looked at the brief. Mr Lundy included a letter. I responded to Mr Brunner. Mr Brunner said to me he thought the amendment, which had been prepared by legislative counsel, which is now before you --

Mr Bisson: Which amendment is that?

Miss MacLean: It's the subsection 9(3) amendment. That was an amendment from the bill in June. Regarding the subsection 9(3) amendment, in November Mr Brunner said to me he thought we had a problem here because intern architects would not be permitted to use the clause; would we consider an amendment? I said no, that legislative counsel had looked at it and they were satisfied. They're the people who make a determination whether you have a conflict with government legislation, general legislation. They were satisfied that there wasn't a problem; it could be read one way or the other, but there wasn't a problem. The Ministry of the Attorney General has now said there is not a problem. We take the position there is no problem, there should be no amendment.

Interjection.

Miss MacLean: My letter, in response to you, was saying that we are not prepared to agree that an intern architect be permitted to use the title. You asked me in the letter whether or not my association, my clients, would agree. I said no, they would not agree. That's what we said.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Miss MacLean: The next issue I want to deal with is the OACETT issue. They have an act very similar to the one that's before you. They are now saying they want it changed. They are attempting, as Mr Hornblow said, to change their act through this act. It's not appropriate. If they want to bring an amendment to their act, fine, let us deal with it.

The addition of the word "architectural," as Susan Klein has indicated to you, is problematic as to whether that inclusion of that word makes it a conflict under the general legislation and whether we are not in fact creating what we created last June. For that reason, we would say please do not endorse the amendment.

Our position quite clearly is that this bill satisfies the concerns of legislative counsel. There is no conflict. It is no different than what you have passed, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, many times in the past. If you look through all the acts that were named, you're going to find the same sections in those acts. There's no difference today. This is a private act; it's not a public act. That's why we don't have public representation on their approval authority. It's private, the same as it is for all the other associations, except for architects.

Mr O'Toole: That somewhat clarifies. I just want, in my own mind, through the OAA, if I may, what is the term for the "intern" in architecture? The study of architecture involves formal academics and then some kind of hands-on period, like an engineer before they become a PEng.

Mr Brunner: Yes, sir, that's right.

Mr O'Toole: How long is that?

Mr Brunner: It's 36 months.

Mr O'Toole: Three years internship?

Mr Brunner: That's right. That's the practical experience.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, working in the field after their academic thing. So it's three years where they would be in limbo, they'd be an intern.

Mr Brunner: That's correct.

Mr O'Toole: For a professional engineer, I think that's a much shorter period, is it not? That seems like an unduly long period of time. I think it's one year for a PEng.

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: Two years? Okay, that helps me. It's a three-year period they'd be neither an architect nor a technologist; they'd be an intern, architect intern.

I want to question Miss MacLean on the preamble, if I may. In the preamble it's very clear to me that "exclusive use of the designations `architectural technologist' and `architectural technician'" are what this bill is about. That's the preamble on page 1. There's no reference to any other term besides very specific differentiation of the term "architect."

1150

Miss MacLean: In terms of use of title, that's correct.

Mr O'Toole: That's right. However, if I go to 9, I see two new terms. In my humble view, as a layman walking down the street, it's a big jump from a "building technologist" to an "architect technologist." That's a huge leap. Please help me through that. It doesn't necessarily imply that one is a carpenter. I'm trying to clarify how you can assume in the preamble that this argument is about the term "architect," and all of a sudden you're defining yourself as a registered building technologist.

Miss MacLean: That's just the preamble to the bill. It's a condensation. You have to read the bill to find out the rest. You'll find the same in all the other acts: It will be condensed.

Mr O'Toole: So in the preamble, would you like to modify that to include other terms as inserted?

Miss MacLean: I didn't draft the preamble, and perhaps you could ask legislative counsel to clarify.

Mr O'Toole: Because that's what entirely this is about if you look at the Architects Act itself. I've made my points, and I have some difficulty with the continuity. I support completely the envisioned energy of the architect technicians to pull themselves away and get on with doing their job and quit dealing with a bunch of bureaucrats. That's what it sounds like to me.

The Chair: Any comments from legal counsel?

Ms Klein: I just wanted to say that the preamble does refer to "registered building technologist" and "registered building technician." It's a little way down, but they are there.

The Chair: Okay, good. I'll go on to the next question.

Mr Ruprecht: I normally look for leadership to the MPP who introduces the bill, and while I appreciate what Mr Hastings has said, I'd like to follow up on the question that was originally put by Mr Pettit, or there was a connection anyway to Mr Pettit's question. But this is to Mr Hastings, if you don't mind.

The Chair: That's Mr Hastings as the sponsor? Go ahead.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Hastings, I listened carefully to your remarks earlier. Do you see any compromise in this at all? That's my first question, and then I have one more.

Mr Hastings: No, I do not, Mr Ruprecht, primarily because the Association of Architectural Technologists over the years, but particularly since they've applied for designation here, have made repeated attempts to deal with those concerns with the Ontario Association of Architects and with the other groups. That was part of the problem when we came here last June in sponsoring the bill. That was the problem that legislative counsel had in terms of how you define these definitions of "architectural technologist" etc. I think the association has made an excellent attempt to resolve that issue.

As to the other issues, I don't see any particular immediate handmade resolution, Mr Ruprecht. There have been attempts made. I think it points out comments made by the leadership of the Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists that there is a need to get these groups to work over time, and when I say "over time," as I said to them yesterday, it will be over quite an amount of time before these things get resolved, because I see it in other areas.

Maybe way back, the resolution of how these respective groups were established wasn't looked at in the long term in terms of all the cross-relationships and the implications of those cross-relationships when you start sorting out what are the scopes of practice for respective groups. That's one of the things that certainly needs to be dealt with in terms of the overall harmonization of these issues.

Right now I think they need to get to work, but whether you're going to get immediate resolution -- as you can see by the statements made by the various representatives here, I think you're going to be looking for some time before that resolves in an easily made resolution.

Mr Ruprecht: I was originally going to recommend that the parties get together and come back, but after listening to Mr Hastings there doesn't seem to be any use to that.

Mr Bisson: I wonder if I can call before the committee -- maybe Mr Hastings can stay and I can get the executive director, Peter Adams, to come forward. I'll try to do this as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Mr Adams: I'd love that.

Mr Bisson: Here we go. You want us to pass a bill that will in the end give you the ability to form an association, basically?

Mr Adams: Actually, there's a little bit of a misnomer. We've been around for over 30 years.

Mr Bisson: No, but in a legal sense.

Mr Adams: In a legal sense, yes. Just like the architects have the legal right to use their name and the engineers have the legal right to use their name, we'd like to.

Mr Bisson: So you want to have that said, and it has absolutely nothing to do with scope of practice? Scope of practice will be dealt with between the architects and the technologists; you guys will work that out later? You're not asking us to change the scope of practice?

Mr Adams: Exactly, and just to further qualify that, we certainly heard today that if we had a problem with the other groups that have been alluded to, such as the Attorney General's office, they would have enunciated that this morning, so we're not in conflict with those other pieces of legislation.

Mr Bisson: That was going to be my next question. This particular committee cannot bring bills before it that are going to change public policy, and that's what I was going to ask leg counsel. In your view, does this affect public policy? Is this in conflict with the AG's act?

Ms Klein: No, the bill is not.

Mr Bisson: So that clarifies that. That's out of the way. You're not in conflict according to leg counsel.

The next thing is in regard to this particular amendment. Maybe I misunderstand, but I'm going to try this in my own way. This particular amendment is not an amendment put forward by your association?

Mr Adams: No, not at all.

Mr Bisson: What this amendment is asking you to do is to basically include the term "intern architect" under your association.

Let me put this in my layman's terms. I'm an electrician and I have designations as an electrician that say I can work on stuff over 750 volts and I'm licensed by the province of Ontario. If I was to accept this here into your act the same as we were to accept, let's say, an engineering student who is doing a co-op placement -- let me try to make that even simpler.

An electrician has the right to do work according to what's set out within our ticket. If I was to accept this premise under the electricians, it would be like saying to the engineering student, "Come in and do the work of the electrician."

Mr Adams: Yes.

Mr Bisson: So really that would make my certificate mean nothing.

Mr Adams: Meaningless, yes. What the architects in effect are asking for is to make our title meaningless by including interns in it. If the interns are allowed to practise, you heard them mention that it's a three-year process, so day one of their internship they get to hold the title "technologist." Someone who studied -- our tax dollars pay for those college programs to turn out technologists, architectural technologists, every year. Their title after they've gone through their internship -- they could be in practice for 40 years and they'd be on the same footing with somebody on day one of their internship as an architect. That's what they're asking for.

Mr Bisson: But let me clarify the other part. These intern architects, in the end, would not be members of your association; they would go to the other?

Mr Adams: No. If they wished to belong to the association --

Mr Bisson: Once they graduate. That's what I'm saying.

Mr Adams: Yes, but certainly they're under no obligation to join or not. That's their choice. It's freedom of choice. We don't mandate in the province people joining the association.

Mr Bisson: So you don't want their dues? This is not about you saying, "I want the dues"?

Mr Adams: No, we don't want their dues -- well, I should change that. If they're out there, we'd like their dues.

Mr Bisson: But I'm trying to clarify for people: This particular amendment is not an amendment where you're saying, "there are 2,500 people out there and I can get their dues," and get them to pay dues to your association.

Mr Adams: Not at all.

Mr Bisson: In fact, you want quite the opposite?

Mr Adams: Yes. In fact, we're quite concerned that if that were included, our title would be meaningless.

Mr Bisson: In other words, a person who has done three years of college to get the certification of architectural technician --

Mr Adams: We do a five-year internship.

Mr Bisson: It's a larger requirement than I thought then.

1200

Mr Hornblow: As the program is set out right now, if you're a three-year graduate out of a college course that is not co-op or not a Ryerson course, you're looking at a minimum of four years' internship. At the end of the four years' internship, you're looking at a full-day exam, but while you're going through your internship you're doing continual upgrade courses and seminars to achieve your full internship.

Mr Bisson: And at the end of that you become an architectural technician, technologist.

Mr Hornblow: That's right, as granted by our certification process.

Mr Bisson: So if we accept this amendment, the people who are interning as architects would have the same qualifications as somebody who's gone through the educational requirements of both the college and the internship.

Mr Hornblow: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Gotcha. So I should vote against this.

Mr Hornblow: Yes.

Mr Bisson: That's all I need to know.

Mr Wells: Perhaps I could clarify an issue, Mr Chairman. Am I entitled to do that?

The Chair: That's a good question.

Mr Wells: I only brought one delegation, not 15. I didn't realize I could bring 15 and have them jump up and make comments.

The Chair: Just give me a minute to find out if this is proper procedure.

Yes, you can respond. I just want to clarify that this is now in the hands of committee members to query applicants and interested parties, but if you wish to --

Mr Wells: I just want to reiterate what I said in my brief before, that OACETT certifies members in 13 major disciplines, in 64 subdisciplines, including construction, building, structural, and a variety of things like that, and has been doing that for about 40 years. To suggest that the 2,000 or so members that we have, almost double AATO, in the building construction and civil area have no right to be there is nonsense.

I would also like to point out that we submitted our brief first in February of this year, when the AATO act came out. We met with the president of AATO on Wednesday, March 13, and Mr Hodgeson and others. We have worked through this process in terms of it with our draft brief. We have had no cooperation. In fact on March 10, 1985, the architectural technologists asked OACETT's recognition of AATO's sole governance for architectural and building technicians and technologists in Ontario. We have said no. We're in that business; we plan to stay in that business because our act allows us to do it.

We have come in here with what we thought were some professional and rational and intelligent recommendations to make this act work and have in effect said we would support it. Like the architects, and I understand their frustration, we run into this stone wall too that says, "We know everything and we won't listen to anybody else."

I just want to say that I get a little frustrated when we get into a turf war and forget about all the major issues that need to be done in this area. I get sick and tired of wasting my time on turf when the high-road issues and harmonization is where we need to go. I think what we have put there is a professional, responsible way to get this out of the way so we can get to work on the things that have to be done that we elected you to do.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm sorry if I butted in, but I needed that addressed. I wanted you to know where we have been on this. Indeed, we were at your committee back here in June and I spoke about our concerns at that time.

Mr Bisson: My very last question to the member who's sponsoring this: Do you support this bill as printed?

Mr Hastings: Absolutely.

Mr Bisson: Without the amendment?

Mr Hastings: Without any amendments.

Mr Bisson: You've got my support. That's what I needed to know.

Mr Shea: I still think section 9 proves to be the area of some concern, and I see that being acknowledged by OACETT. I gather, at least with the nodding of heads, that there is some concern that there is a need for amendments. I also have some concerns on behalf of the architectural association and I would like to ask Tony Griffiths a couple of questions just to pick up on the points raised earlier. Tony, if you could just get to the desk, please. Then I want to ask legislative counsel and also the Attorney General's staff for a comment. I think we are trying to deal with this today if we can, but I recognize the time that's going on and the fact that there seems not to be consensus yet.

Mr Griffiths, let me ask you a question about the suggested amendment that's put before the committee, of which I gather you or your association may be the author, moving that "paragraph 2 of subsection 9(3) of the bill be amended by adding `including an intern architect' at the end." Is that your recommendation?

Mr Griffiths: Yes, it is, Mr Shea. We feel it would give our members an additional level of security which we feel to be necessary in the climate we're dealing.

Mr Shea: Let me see if we can cut to the chase here very quickly, because Mr Bisson and I are both trying to focus on exactly the same kind of an issue and I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. In response to a question put to him by Mr Bisson, the executive director has indicated, "The concern we have is that when a technologist is now recognized as a technologist" -- and that's after three years plus internship, and they've now granted certification -- "they then have to stand on the same level as a person who has just graduated as an architect from the university." Let's leave aside the status issue for a moment and so forth, but has that essentially put the issue?

Mr Griffiths: It's put it in a particular light. During the five years, sometimes six years, of study at schools of architecture, the study is, agreed, more holistic, dealing with other issues than purely technology, but technology is not ignored by any manner of means. So architects, when they have passed their architectural certification at the CARB, are in my opinion quite capable of doing technological work within section 9, which is also open to any member of the public at this time.

Mr Shea: You say "in your opinion," and therein hangs a tale. Who makes that determination?

Mr Griffiths: The qualifications of graduates from schools of architecture are certified by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board, which visits schools, assesses them, judges whether they're competent and so on.

Mr Shea: Would they be prepared to say that the student who has graduated from a school of architecture and has now become an interim architect has the same level of competencies and capabilities as a person who has now been granted the technologist certification?

Mr Brunner: No, sir. They only deal with academic qualifications. They certify the academic qualifications obtained by a person who wants to obtain a licence under the Architects Act.

Mr Shea: Thank you, I appreciate that. Now we're beginning to peel away the onion. What is the intern architect referred to when they graduate and are assigned to a supervising architect?

Mr Brunner: He's a person like a doctor or a lawyer who is serving a period of practical experience, an internship for a certain period of time as specified in the regulations.

Mr Shea: Are they referred to as an architect?

Mr Brunner: No, intern architect, sir.

Mr Shea: They are referred to as an intern architect?

Mr Brunner: Yes, that's set out in the regulations.

Mr Shea: In the Architects Act?

Mr Brunner: In the regulations under the Architects Act.

Mr Shea: So they are in fact already covered and can sign themselves as an intern architect.

Mr Brunner: They can call themselves "intern architect."

Mr Bisson: They can't approve them.

Mr Shea: I understand what they can and cannot do as an intern.

Mr Brunner: That's why the position of the AATO is curious, sir. They just said to you before, "We don't want any part of them," yet they're not prepared to write that exclusion into their statute. You must ask yourself why. Why?

Mr Bisson: That's not the issue.

Mr Brunner: They're in there. They're in our section 46, sir.

Mr Shea: I think we're asking the question of why the intern architect is not included there as an exclusion by saying he should not be there.

1210

Mr Brunner: The problem becomes, sir, that the intern architect as such is not referred to in subsection 9(3) of the proposed bill. Since he's not referred to, if, while he's doing his internship -- many of these people work as architectural technologists. They hold those titles. They wouldn't be able to continue to do that under the present bill unless they joined the AATO and paid their dues.

Mr Bisson: No, no.

Mr Brunner: That's exactly right, sir.

Mr Shea: So you're now telling me that intern architects in some instances are to sign themselves as technologists?

Mr Brunner: No. Municipalities, for example, have positions called architectural technologists, and some intern architects apply and do hold those positions.

Mr Shea: That would fall surely under the phrase "or equivalency," would it not?

Mr Brunner: I don't know. It depends. But if the title of the job requires the person to use the words "architectural technologist," the intern architect wouldn't be able to hold that position without joining them.

Mr Shea: So the architectural association wants the intern architect to be able to designate himself or herself as an intern architect or a technologist.

Mr Brunner: Architectural technologist.

Mr Shea: They want the option to go either way.

Mr Brunner: While he's an intern, only. Only while he's an intern.

Mr Shea: I understand your position very clearly now and I now do understand the bill very clearly in that sense. That's what Mr Bisson and I want to make sure we're very clear about. I have no other questions.

I have a question now of legislative counsel and the Attorney General. Let me start with the AG. Are there any comments?

Mr John Twohig: Mr Shea, my only comment was that when I read the exception that was proposed in subsection 9(3) of Bill Pr40, I perhaps naïvely read that exception to include intern architects, because they are a class of people created under the Architects Act by regulation who are entitled to use the term "architect"; in this case, "intern architect." I would have thought they were covered.

I understand from legislative counsel that they agree that argument is there. It's now become apparent, as of last Thursday, that there is a disagreement. One side believes they are not; the other side believes they are. It's for this committee to decide whether or not they want the bill to go forward or whether they want that absolute protection put in there to make it clear that intern architects are or are not included.

Mr Shea: Let me just ask leg counsel.

Ms Klein: I agree with what Mr Twohig says, that that's the picture.

Mr Shea: Terrific. Thank you both.

Ms Klein: Do you want more clarification?

Mr Bisson: I realize what he's saying.

Mr Shea: I know what he's saying.

Mr Bisson: You could have made that a lot simpler. Basically, they want the same right as technologists.

Mr Twohig: When you say "right," you've seized upon the first issue when you say, "Is there a scope of practice?" There is no scope of practice.

Mr Bisson: That's right. Not bad for an electrician.

Mr Shea: The final question I think, Mr Chairman, has to go to OACETT. Do I take it from the deputant that there is a lack of comfort with the bill as it is appearing before us right now?

Mr Wells: There is a lack of comfort with the bill that was handed to you. The concern, as we have expressed, is that we feel it puts a goodly number of our members in jeopardy who may be subject to prosecution because they are basically doing what the OACETT act and OACETT, which you adjudicated many years ago, have entitled them to do. That's in the building areas. We have put some recommendations that we think cover that without taking away from the act. I want to restate we are not opposed to the act.

Mr Shea: Okay, you're not opposed to the act. That's number one. We're getting there, sir. We're almost there now, I hope.

Number two is that the introduction of the word "architectural" has been flagged as causing some concern. The committee can ignore that if it wishes, but the other part is the concern that you're placed in some jeopardy. Would you not agree that section 12 provides the comfort that you're actually looking for?

Mr Wells: Our lawyers -- and I apologize that they're not here -- suggest that section 12 refers back to 9(2), and 9(2) specifically talks in terms of building technologists, architectural technologists. So our sense is it is not sufficiently clear that there might not be grounds for a prosecution.

Mr Shea: So that now becomes just a legal -- I don't mean it in a pejorative sense, but that becomes a legal definition of whether you're in or not. But there is some question of whether you're included, and in that regard let me just ask leg counsel to respond.

Ms Klein: I think the offence is to use the term "registered building technologist" or "registered building technician." I think it is not an offense to continue to use the words "building technologist" or "building technician" without "registered" in front of them.

Mr Shea: But they could in fact use the title?

Ms Klein: I think they can use "building technologist" and "building technician." I don't think that would be an offence under this Bill Pr40.

Mr Wells: How about "certified building technologist" and "certified building technician," since we are a certification body and use the term "certified" in all our other titles?

The Chair: Is that a question to legal counsel?

Mr Wells: Yes.

Ms Klein: I think you can use anything except "registered building technologist" and "registered building technician." It's those three words together that create the offence.

Mr Pettit: I think things are starting to crystallize. I think I was the first questioner about an hour and a half ago and at that point I indicated that in my view I see a little bit of petty protectionism, if you will, developing here. I think Mr Ruprecht picked up on that also. Things were really starting to brew there for a bit.

What I see here is a Bermuda Triangle, not just from the professional side but also from the legal side. Mr Hastings, when questioned, says he sees no compromise. Mr Wells states that he'd like to see some type of high-road harmonization. I hope the three groups could get together, rise to the occasion and get away from some of these playground-style antics that we've seen here.

I just want to clarify -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong. We have the OAA saying that the AATO already has the right to use the title "architectural technologist" and/or "architectural technician," and also that there is no justification to use the title "registered building technologist" and/or "registered building technician," whereas OACETT is proposing to add the word "architectural" in both cases and the AATO is opposed to adding that word. Is that correct? Is that it?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr Pettit: Well, where do we go from here then?

The Chair: Is that correct? I'm not sure what group you're addressing that question to.

Mr Pettit: I just wanted to make a couple of comments relative to the whole thing as to the way I see what's developing here.

The Chair: The question is, is that correct?

Mr Pettit: Is that basically it in a nutshell?

Mr Boushy: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think we have had enough discussion on the bill. I think we're all ready to vote one way or the other and I think the time has come to vote. As far as I can see, I'm in favour of the bill as printed. So if the time has come, I'd be glad to make such a motion and either you vote for it or you vote against it.

The Chair: The question has been put. Are the members ready to vote?

Mr Boushy: We're ready. I move that it be approved as printed.

The Chair: The members are ready to vote.

Mr Bisson: What are we voting on, Chair?

Mr Boushy: The bill, as printed.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask for -- never mind. It's going to complicate things.

The Chair: Before we vote, I would ask are there any amendments to Pr40? Okay.

We are voting on Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, sponsored by Mr Hastings. In keeping with accepted procedure to date, we collapse sections to vote on sections by grouping them together.

Shall sections 1 through 15 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? Agreed.

I wish to thank the applicants and interested parties. I declare the order of business closed.

The committee adjourned at 1221.