Questions and Answers Arising from the AIBC Special Meeting

Updated February 16, 2009

The following information is the result of queries received both at and following the AIBC’s Special Meeting, which took place on November 24, 2008 . Virtually all questions appear as asked, though some duplicate queries have been combined to allow for a single response. If you do not see a response to a question you may have submitted, please resubmit. Also, some of the responses reflect the developmental stage of the new legislation process and will be revised as consultation proceeds and decisions are made.
These questions and answers, along with subsequent queries, will be used as part of the standing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource on the AIBC’s New Legislation web page.

AIBC Council sincerely appreciates those who have taken the time to submit questions and initiate dialogue. We recognize your concerns and are committed to providing the information needed to address them. This is an important conversation, at a critical point in the evolution of the AIBC. Thank-you for getting involved.

Section A: Draft Act

A1. Q: Could the AIBC prepare a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed Architect’s Act?

A2. Q. Please indicate the timeline for release of the draft bylaws and bylaw amendments to accompany the new act, with particular reference to news classes of members.

A3. Q: In the proposed act material, where does it describe new, unqualified architects? I can find nothing.

A4. Q. What is the rationale for the legislative model chosen? Why a “House of Architecture” rather than umbrella legislation like the Health Professions Act?

A5. Q: Has the proposed model been realized in any other North American jurisdiction?

A1. Q: Could the AIBC prepare a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed Architect’s Act?

A: The proposed new legislation is both a re-write and re-organization of the existing act, rather than merely revisions. As a result, a side-by-side comparison would be both difficult to construct and equally difficult to review. Instead, the AIBC has prepared two additional cross-referencing documents (explanatory notes) which allow the reader to compare the current and proposed legislation and also to compare related provisions/concepts within the new draft. These documents are posted on the website at: http://www.aibc.ca/proposed_legislation/pages/legislation/components.htm

A2. Q: Please indicate the timeline for release of the draft bylaws and bylaw amendments to accompany the new act, with particular reference to news classes of members.

A: While the AIBC is keen for all registrants to have this detailed information so they can better understand how the whole system will work, there is no simple answer to the question of “when?”

First, the bylaws cannot be developed until such time as a number of key issues (e.g. entry standards, competencies and underlying scopes of practice for Building Designers, Interior Designers, Residential Designers and Architectural Technologists) are agreed upon. This work is currently being carried out by the AIBC’s Registration & Licensing Board and its related committees.
Second, we have been advised that the new act will not reach the provincial government’s legislative agenda until 2010 at the earliest. While the conceptual design for bylaws is in place, it would be ill-advised to invest limited resources until such a time as the wording of the act is more settled and matter has reached the legislative agenda.
Third, as demonstrated at the November 24, 2008 special meeting, AIBC Council remains committed to having registrants be more fully engaged in the process with additional opportunities for consultation and input before the specifics of the proposed legislation, including bylaws, are further established. That said, the AIBC will begin publishing more details about what the bylaws may look like as part of the continuing consultative process. As always, any such bylaws will be subject to a vote.

The desire for more detailed information will undoubtedly increase as people become more engaged in the process and broader concepts are explored. The AIBC will make its best efforts to formulate and share as much detail as possible regarding the likely bylaw structure in the weeks and months ahead.

A3. Q: In the proposed act material, where does it describe new, unqualified architects? I can find nothing.

A: The proposed act does not include new, unqualified architects, so such a description is not to be found.

The AIBC is a regulatory body established by the government to protect the public interest in the practise of architecture. It does this primarily by ensuring the competence and good conduct of its registrants, and by making sure that unqualified and/or unregistered individuals do not engage in those aspects of architecture protected under the legislation. This will not change.

Currently, only the practise of architecture concerning buildings of size, scale and complexity above the thresholds set out in Section 60 of the Architects Act (the exemption provisions) is regulated. Any person can rightfully practise architecture for work that falls below the exemption thresholds. Both the AIBC and the provincial government believe the public interest would be better served by ensuring that anyone practicing what is currently unregulated architecture is regulated in the future. The proposed new legislation will extend the jurisdiction of the AIBC to set standards of entry, practise and conduct for practitioners planning and supervision the erection or alteration of all buildings larger than a single family structure on a single site or a duplex on a single site.

The AIBC and the provincial government also recognize that there are many people practicing architecture in the currently unregulated area. The AIBC has no right to unilaterally take away the livelihoods of these people. Under the proposed new legislation, the institute will set standards of entry and practice for such individuals. These people will have to demonstrate they meet strict qualification standards established by the AIBC for entry and conduct and continued competence requirements for ongoing registration.

A4. Q: What is the rationale for the legislative model chosen? Why a “House of Architecture” rather than umbrella legislation like the Health Professions Act?

A: There are a number of regulatory models that can be used in resolving policy and jurisdictional problems. In British Columbia, there is ongoing discussion around what regulatory models work best for various regulated professions, driven to a large degree by the approach taken by government with the health professions under the Health Professions Act.

Umbrella legislation, though not without its own criticism, can be an effective model under the right circumstances. It works well when:

there are a large number of professional groups competing for influence and practice recognition from government within a broad but related regulatory area (such as health care);
such groups have existing and overlapping scopes of practice; and
such groups are publicly funded.

With publicly-funded bodies, the government has a far greater stake in wishing to retain oversight and control. The umbrella approach is also one suited to a situation in which concerns, whether founded or not, over the ability for some of the groups to regulate effectively in the public interest have been raised either by government or the public.

The Health Professions Act created an umbrella statute under which a number of self-regulatory colleges were created – some with exclusive or shared scopes of practice, others with no practice rights per se. The umbrella approach gives government far greater influence and oversight over the colleges.

These factors are less prevalent in the case of the architectural professions, which are all private sector. Without diminishing the scope and scale of architecture, or the critical role it plays in human health, safety and living environment, architecture is more focused than the health professions. Architecture also deals with fewer groups having overlapping interests than health care does. Rather, it involves a small number of related groups with relatively small memberships having shared interests and collegial good will, working together in the public interest under one coordinated regulatory roof. In other words, government achieves regulation of architects and associated groups all under the auspices of one organization and within one piece of legislation. Simply put, the architectural world does not have the same political, public sector and policy issues and factors that characterize the health profession. Therefore, the umbrella approach is not the necessary or appropriate solution. For a well-functioning family, the “house” approach works better.

This is not to say that there are no lessons to be learned from the Health Professions approach. In fact, many its provisions are controlling principles within the AIBC’s current culture, including those relating to:

ensuring transparent, expeditious, fair and accessible discipline and enforcement;
facilitating public participation on governing councils, boards, and committees through lay appointees; and
establishing fair and defensible standards of entry to the profession that provides access to all those who can demonstrate they meet the standards

The AIBC’s desire to drive these principles deeper into the very fabric of the profession is one of the prime motivating forces behind the call for new legislation.

A5. Q: Has the proposed model been realized in any other North American jurisdiction?

A: Models similar to the integrated approach called for under the proposed Architectural Professions Act are in place in various Canadian (e.g. Alberta) and United States jurisdictions. One example of such a system working very well in B.C. is the Foresters Act.

Should you have any further questions regarding the proposed legislation, please submit them using the Feedback resource on the New Legislation web page.

The complete Q&A is also available in PDF format. Please click here to download.