Questions and Answers Arising from the AIBC Special Meeting

Updated February 16, 2009

Section C: Scopes of Practice

C1. Q: Will the British Columbia Building Code definition of “buildings requiring architect’s services” be affected?

C2. Q: In the online document on the proposed changes entitled “Designers & the AIBC”, the executive notes “under the proposed new legislation, many changes to the rights/obligations of a particular member category to agreed-upon scopes of practice cannot be made with a majority vote from the affected membership category. This will protect one’s right of practice while also allowing for broadening of scope if feasible and supported”. How does the executive reconcile this acknowledgement of the “proposed members’” vested interests on one hand while proposing to undermine the interests of the existing membership on the other hand?

C3. Q: An architect, by virtue of membership in the AIBC, must comply with the Architects Act, including the recommended Schedule of Fees, regardless of the scope of work of an intended project even if that scope falls within the bounds of the “exceptions” clause of the act. Will the various new “associates” (as opposed to “associate members”) be required to comply with the same “schedule of values” if competing for the same project (e.g. a new house)?. It seems that there could be at least three different disciplines competing for the same project: an architect, a building designer and a house designer. Surely they will have to comply with the same recommended fee schedule. Please do not forget that most of our architectural practices are small firms or sole practitioners who survive on such projects.

C4. Q: Will the other disciplines all have to comply with the same recommended schedule of fees for the same project types?

C5. Q: What about scope of work definitions for other “disciplines” under the AIBC's umbrella organization. I can quite easily see several different disciplines under the AIBC umbrella organization competing for the exact same projects (e.g. a new house). Will there be a specific scope of work for each of these disciplines? Will there be an “exceptions” clause within the Scope definitions for each discipline?

C6. Q: Is there any intent to change the so-called “exclusions” or will they stay the same as in the current act?

C7. Q: Is there any distinction in the proposed act as to what each class of member will be allowed to practise?

C8. Q: Will the AIBC allow for joint practice firms whose partners are from several disciplines under the AIBC umbrella organization?

C9. Q: Will interior designers be allowed to fully practise architecture, or just in limited areas of practice?

C10. Q: How do you plan to reduce the area of unregulated building design?

C11. Q: Will all “designers” have to be associated with the AIBC or can some designers work within the exceptions and outside of the institute’s sphere?

C1. Q: Will the British Columbia Building Code definition of “buildings requiring architect’s services” be affected?

No. The reason for this is that the Architects Act, not the British Columbia Building Code, defines which buildings require the services of an architect. The Architects Act is a law of common application in the province. The BCBC is a policy document only; it does not have the force of law or regulation. As such, the Architects Act and AIBC bylaws have precedence.

A: The provisions of the legislation to which this question refers are there to ensure that no single category of registrant can unilaterally take away the rights assigned to another category. This is a protection that works for both current and future categories of registrant.

A review of building permits reveals that the vast majority of buildings fall within the current exemption provisions. Bringing most of these buildings under the regulatory authority of an Architectural Professions Act will in fact expand potential opportunities for all registrants while protecting the public interest in those previously exempt buildings.

A: The simple answer is that any tariff or tariffs of fees in effect will apply to all practitioners doing work of scope and size to which the tariff will apply. More importantly, the standards of practise and public interest expectations contained in the tariff documents will apply to all. In essence, the playing field will be evened for all practitioners. Please see the answer to question B7 above for a general discussion on the tariff of fees.

C4. Q: Will the other disciplines all have to comply with the same recommended schedule of fees for the same project types?

A: As noted in the responses to previous, related questions (B7 and C3), the broad answer is “yes”. However, one or more tariffs may be developed to cover different sizes, types and complexities of buildings or projects.

A: The AIBC’s proposed structure is not an “umbrella” as addressed previously. That said, scopes of practice for the various categories of registrant will be clearly defined. It should be noted that the scope of practice for architects will remain unchanged in that they will continue to be able to provide services across the full range of building sizes and types. The proposed new legislation calls for extending the AIBC’s current jurisdiction to allow the institute to also regulate those providing services for those building types and sizes currently excluded from the existing act. In so doing, it must be recognized that there are people who currently are legally entitled to work in the excluded areas; government and the courts would not allow their livelihoods to be taken away without allowing them registration, which would in turn require demonstrated competency.

Any scope of practice developed for building designers and residential designers will not reduce the scope available to architects; they will continue to have the authority to work in all areas, as they do today. The difference will be that those persons working in the current exemption areas must be registered with the AIBC and must now meet strict standards of competence and conduct. In essence, the playing field will have been leveled. Most importantly, the public will be better protected in knowing that those upon whom they are relying for advice and services are competent, qualified, subject to a code of ethics and standards of practise, and can be held accountable for their competence and conduct.

C6. Q: Is there any intent to change the so-called “exclusions” or will they stay the same as in the current act?

A: Yes. As discussed in the answers to several other questions, the new legislation proposes eliminating the exclusions down to the single family or duplex on a single site.

C7. Q: Is there any distinction in the proposed act as to what each class of member will be allowed to practise?

A: Not in the act itself. The act will empower AIBC registrants to define this through the bylaws.

C8. Q: Will the AIBC allow for joint practice firms whose partners are from several disciplines under the AIBC umbrella organization?

A: Yes, so long as they are majority owned/controlled by registrants who can be held accountable by the AIBC for competence and conduct. Certificates of Practice will still need to be issued, and rules for issuance of certificates will have to be respected.

C9. Q: Will interior designers be allowed to fully practise architecture, or just in limited areas of practice?

A: Interior designers will be granted a limited scope of practice restricted to interiors and non-structural elements of a building.

C10. Q: How do you plan to reduce the area of unregulated building design?

A: The proposed new legislation would do this by removing almost all building types and sizes that currently fall within current exemption provisions. Under the new legislative scheme, only single family residences or duplexes on a single site will remain open to unregulated designers. Again, the scope of public protection is expanded.

C11. Q: Will all “designers” have to be associated with the AIBC or can some designers work within the exceptions and outside of the institute’s sphere?

A: The new legislation will assign the AIBC responsibility to regulate a broader range of building types and sizes, with a requirement that those working in areas encompassed by the new act be regulated by the AIBC. The only exceptions would be single family residences or duplexes on a single site.

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.