 |
        |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Questions and Answers Arising from the AIBC Special MeetingUpdated February 16, 2009Section B - Expanded RegistrationB6 Q: By whose permission was title conferred to non-professionals with “AIBC” as a suffix? B7. Q: Would the current schedule of fees be mandatory for the proposed new classes of members? B8. Q: Has the AIBC reviewed other provincial or international architects acts? B9. Q: How many other associations permit non-architects to be members? B11. Q: Will new members of the AIBC have full voting rights? B14. Q: How has the public expressed its demand, that it wants inclusion of others? B1. Q: Throughout the Special Meeting the term “member” was used indiscriminately when referring to architects and non-architect “associates” alike. Many MAIBCs feel strongly that the designation “MAIBC” ought to remain the primary designation for architects in B.C. The use of “.AIBC” as an appendage to other specific disciplines muddies the waters. There must be a better way to distinguish one discipline from another. Wouldn't it be much clearer to the public “purchaser” of various services to have more obvious letter designations for non-architecture disciplines? For example, professional Interior Designers in B.C. have long been designated “R.I.D.” - Registered Interior Designer. Wouldn't the designation “R.I.D.BC” be much less confusing that “ID.AIBC”? Similarly, “R.BD.BC” - Registered Building Designer in BC; R.BT.BC - Registered Building Technologist in B.C.; etc.? The appendage “.AIBC” lends confusion to who actually is an architect. It is an unnecessary and unwanted change? A: Considerable thought has been given to the optimum titles and designations under the proposed new legislative scheme which calls for adopting the “Architect.AIBC” or “Arch.AIBC” designation. This designation will be used in conjunction with the title “Architect”. Consideration is being given to allowing architects to continue to use the MAIBC designation. There are several competing interests that must be balanced. For one, the current legislation is archaic in its use of the term “member”. It is applicable today to registered architects only, though there are many other professionals who are AIBC registrants and subject to the legislation. The current, narrow usage of the term “member” is no longer applicable in our modern world. Even in our existing act and without considering the AIBC’s new BD.AIBC and RD.AIBC registrants, the term “member” creates confusion in the current situation with members and associates. Under the proposed new legislation, there will be a range of registrant types, each with its own rights and obligations. The unifying factor is that they will all be regulated by the AIBC - hence the consistent “.AIBC” extension in the designation. In terms of day-to-day business, it is reasonable to expect that most registrants will continue to use their title along with their designation, eliminating any possible public confusion. Finally, it is a misconception to suggest that the MAIBC designation is widely recognized and well understood. Unfortunately, very few people outside of the profession truly know what the MAIBC designation means or represents. Far more people understand and identify with the word ”architect”. B2. Q: I am a graduate architect, registered through the CACB, NCARB and AIBC. At the start of the president’s message at the special meeting, a slide indicated the AIBC was representing the “architectural professions”. I am an architect. There are no other architectural professions. Will the act allow other “architectural professions”? A: The current Architects Act describes architecture as the planning or supervision of the erection or alteration of buildings – a broad definition. The act also restricts the practise of architecture to architects. However, it then opens up a significant area of practice to non-architects through the exemption provisions (Section 60). Through these provisions, any person is permitted to practise architecture on a range of building sizes and types without offending the restricted practice provisions of the legislation. Groups such as Building Designers, Interior Designers and Residential Designers have emerged over the years, along with professional standards to regulate their practice within the exclusion provisions of the Architects Act. There is recognition within these groups that, without full legislative authority akin to that given by the Architects Act, the public interest is not sufficiently protected in terms of ensuring competent and accountable professional services and adequate health and safety considerations. These groups have also recognized that the public interest will be best served through one professional body regulating the full range of professional practice inherent within the built design world. The AIBC’s experience and expertise in regulating architects, and the institute’s strong history of public protection, has led these groups to work with the AIBC and government in support of the proposed new legislation. B3. Q: There are presently newly designated associates accepted by present council. What are the requirements governing their roles, education and experience if there were these bylaws in place when they were introduced and enforced? A: There are no such bylaws in place and under our current legislation they are not required. Under the proposed new legislation, entry standards will be set through bylaws. For many years there have been various categories of associates within the AIBC (including Retired Architect, Previously Registered Architect, Graduate Architect, Intern Architect, and Architectural Technologist). Under the statutory authority granted by the existing act (Section 40), AIBC Council created additional associate categories for Building Designer, Interior Designer and Residential Designer. As with all associate categories, these persons are permitted to practise through the exemption provisions of the act. The new legislation would remove most of the exemptions while making registration mandatory contingent on demonstrated competence. The education, experience and examination requirements for any category of registrant will be determined by AIBC registrants and set in the AIBC’s bylaws. Representatives of the building design, interior design and residential design communities are currently working with the AIBC’s Registration & Licensing Board to determine entrance standards and the underlying competency assessment criteria for these associate registrant categories. Entry will be based on relevant education, experience and examination requirements specific to these categories. No scope of practice will be proposed under new legislation without clearly demonstrable competencies. B4. Q: What happens to all the established interior designers who are not members of IDIBC but have established successful practices without ownership by a registered interior designer? A: They will have to become registered and licensed with the AIBC. B5. Q: How can the public tell the difference between a full member of the AIBC (i.e. an architect) and an associate member when all have the suffix” .AIBC”, not “.assoc.AIBC”? This is not clear enough for the general public. A: As all individuals within the AIBC will be governed under the same new act, it is in the best interest of the public to use a standard suffix for all categories of registrant, especially since “.AIBC” is already a widely recognized designation. This will be less confusing than other approaches. The distinction between architects and other categories will be even clearer to the general public than the current standard as architects will actually use the word “architect”. B6. Q: By whose permission was title conferred to non-professionals with “AIBC” as a suffix? A: AIBC Council, pursuant to the authority granted in the existing Architects Act, created the designation. B7. Q: Would the current schedule of fees be mandatory for the proposed new classes of members? A: The current tariff is not mandatory. However the guiding principles within the current tariff are and would apply. Different fee guidelines for different sizes/types of projects may need to be established to take into account the size/scope of work the new legislation will now capture. B8. Q: Has the AIBC reviewed other provincial or international architects acts? A: Yes, including the other Canadian provinces as well as legislation from the United States, Europe and Australia. B9. Q: How many other associations permit non-architects to be members? A: The governing legislation in Alberta allows for regulation of both architects and interior designers within the Alberta Association of Architects. Alberta has also adopted a designation style similar to that of the AIBC (e.g. John Doe, Architect, AAA; Jane Doe, Interior Designer, AAA). Ontario also regulates Architectural Technicians through the Ontario Association of Architects. B10. Q: Our president says “the public expects inclusion and integration from the professions”. Would public confidence be increased or assured with “classes” of medical professionals or lawyers? When is a doctor a doctor? Public clarity is essential. A: There will be no “classes” of architects under the proposed new act. Bill 10, introduced by the provincial government in 2008, revised existing legislation to permit the AIBC to designate categories of specialization (similar to the medical profession). There are numerous examples of professional regulatory bodies which designate and regulate specialties within the profession. The medical profession is perhaps the most prominent example, and there is no public confusion about the range of specialists within that profession. Indeed, it is in the public interest that specialists are properly identified. Meanwhile, a doctor with specialized skills remains a doctor. Even so, the introduction of Bill 10 permitting specialist designations has nothing to do with the changes proposed in the draft legislation. For both the current and the proposed legislation, the scope of practice for architects will not change, and the range of practice open to architects will expand. B11. Q: Will new members of the AIBC have full voting rights? A: Yes, but they will also have different practice rights. The governing legislation will also provide protection for each registrant designation to ensure that rights cannot be changed unilaterally by one designation that would affect another designation. B12. Q: Why did you not invite the builders and contractors to the membership when you are mentioning master builders? A: The legislation is meant to regulate the profession, not related trades or construction associations. The AIBC is a regulatory body, not a trade association, union or bargaining agent. The allusion at the November 24, 2008 special meeting to the 16th century concept of a “master builder." Today, there are many demands that require the profession of architecture to take a broader view of the built environment, and to assume a leadership position for the various groups involved in the creation of that built environment. There are few projects today that can be designed and constructed alone, by one individual, as was once the case with the “master builder”. In any event, the legislation and AIBC bylaws protect the public interest by regulating the provision of independent professional architectural services in the design and field review of construction - not the delivery of commercial products. The construction industry is, and chooses to remain, unregulated. B13. Q: Does the engineering society allow non-P.ENGs (mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters) as members? A. No. Neither the AIBC nor The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC) are seeking authority to register or regulate trades. APEGBC does, however, have a structural engineer designation and is considering others. It is also moving towards regulation of engineering technologists under its legislation. Building Designers and Interior Designers are not trades. The draft act does not call for regulation of architectural trades. It seeks to regulate practitioners currently working in excluded areas that would no longer be excluded under new legislation. Such practitioners will only be given scopes of practice demonstratively commensurate with their competency as determined by the AIBC. APEGBC and the AIBC are both actively seeking to license and regulate associated professionals. B14. Q: How has the public expressed its demand, that it wants inclusion of others? A: The interests of the public are recognized and directly represented throughout this process in two ways: through their elected government representatives with whom the AIBC has consulted on legislative and regulatory issues; and through the Lieutenant Governor’s appointees, four layperson representatives who are members of AIBC council. Both the provincial government, at ministerial and administrative levels, and the LG Appointees (both current and previous) have expressed full support for the direction being taken with respect to AIBC regulation of other design professionals. B15. Q: Does the British Columbia Medical Association allow non-MDs (chiropractors, pharmacists, nurses, physiotherapists) as members? A: No, they already have their own legislation.
In fact, one of the main reasons for the Health
Professions Act is the many health-related professions
either with or demanding legislation, and competing
for or claiming the right to engage in health-related
practice activities. B.16 Q: Does the Law Society of British Columbia allow non-lawyers (paralegals, notaries) as members? A: No, but there is an important distinction. Paralegals have no legislative authority to practise independently. This is not the case for Building Designers, Interior Designers or Residential Designers. The relevant legislation also does not permit notaries to practise law – unlike the current Architects Act which permits designers to practise in the identified exceptions. That said, the inclusion of paralegals under the same legislation as lawyers has been mandated in Ontario, and is actively being pursued here in British Columbia. The intent is for the law societies to regulate notarial practice, not to permit notaries to practise law. |
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. |
||||||||||||||
© AIBC 2008 | Terms of Use |
|||||||||||||||||
