This week at the Legislature will feature committee hearings on Bill 7,
The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act.For many years there have been disputes between the architects and engineers about their respective roles in the design and construction of buildings in Manitoba. For the most part, other provinces have settled this issue, but in Manitoba the conflict has lingered on. A considerable part of the fault lies with consecutive Conservative and NDP governments in Manitoba which have failed to resolve the dispute, even though it has long been clear that provincial leadership is needed.
The matter was brought to a head this fall when a court order haulted construction of buildings which fall within the parameters of the
Architects Act, if there has not been an architect involved under the terms of the Act. Basically the court pointed out that the province was failing in its duty to enforce the terms of the
Architects Act which has provided for the role of architects in the design and construction of complex buildings.
The NDP have decided to bring in changes to the
Architects Act which will clarify the respective roles of architects and engineers. Sadly, Bill 7 is badly flawed. One result of the problems in the way the NDP have written Bill 7 is that we now expect well over 100 people to come to the committee meetings to talk about this Bill and the changes that are needed to it.
One of the good things about the Manitoba process for making laws is that citizens have an opportunity to have input. After a Bill, like Bill 7, has passed second reading, it will go to a Legislative Committee. Any citizen can call up the Clerk of the Legislature ( phone 945-3636) and register to present.
It is worth commenting on one of the reasons why Bill 7 is flawed. Normally, in putting forward bills to the Manitoba Legislature, a careful comparison is made with other jurisdictions, and the Manitoba legislation is modelled after legislation which already exists elsewhere. In this case, there are many other successful examples. Bills in Alberta and Ontario have been cited as examples.
When we prepared Bill 202,
The Good Samaritan Act, we first looked carefully at legislation in other jurisdictions and made use of this material in drafting Bill 202.
Unfortunately, in drafting Bill 7, the NDP appear to have disregarded what has been done and is working well in other jurisdictions. One result has been that the bill contains some quite problematic clauses which could have varied interpretations, and which could result in practices quite different from what we have been told is the intent of the legislation. As Bill 7 goes through committee, Kevin Lamoureux and I will be listening carefully to the presenters (many are engineers or architects) to try to do what we can to remedy the NDP errors in the Bill.