Questions and Answers Arising from the AIBC Special Meeting

Updated February 16, 2009

Section I: Legislative Process

I1. Q: Can there be a professional Architects Act for the practice of architecture as well as a new Architectural Act that is inclusive of other disciplines?

I2. Q: When will the membership vote on the direction in which this proposed act is taking us?

I3. Q: Is it true that a council-formulated change to the Architects Act has already been given third reading by the legislature, without having been put to the required two-thirds majority vote of membership? If so, does this not go against the Architects Act?

I4. Q: Why is the AIBC in a hurry to complete the new act by 2010?

I5. Q: Ontario, for example, managed to control and coordinate paraprofessionals without diluting or putting at risk the senior professionals. As we need to start this process over to make it transparent, how are we going to create clarity in the public mind? The new “X” AIBC is now perceived as equal to, not different from, architects. How can we fix this now?

I6. Is the provincial government even concerned with changes to the Architect’s Act? I’ve been told the only ones asking for these changes are on AIBC Council.

I1 Q: Can there be a professional Architects Act for the practice of architecture as well as a new Architectural Act that is inclusive of other disciplines?

A: The legislative scheme proposed by the AIBC effectively does this. In arriving at this scheme, the concept of two separate pieces of legislation was considered and rejected as it would ultimately create more confusion and potential for regulatory conflict than the model chosen. Also, the public interest in having efficient and effective regulation of the architectural professions is better served under the “one act” model.

I2. Q: When will the membership vote on the direction in which this proposed act is taking us?

A: AIBC registrants and other relevant stakeholders have been consulted on an ongoing basis over the many years during which this process has been under way, and their concerns and interests are reflected in the changes proposed. As is often the case, interest in the topic has increased as its impact becomes more imminent, as clearly indicated by the November 2008 Special Meeting. As a result, AIBC Council has reconfirmed its commitment to ongoing consultation with its registrants.

The legislative change process is not something done by referendum. Rather, it is a process between the provincial government and the elected council representatives of the AIBC. AIBC Council takes its responsibilities in this regard seriously and will not propose any new legislation to government without full and frank consultation with registrants and other affected stakeholders. In addition, AIBC Council will not propose any changes that are not first and foremost in the public interest .

I3. Q: Is it true that a council-formulated change to the Architects Act has already been given third reading by the legislature, without having been put to the required two-thirds majority vote of membership? If so, does this not go against the Architects Act?

A: This is simply untrue. The proposed legislation is still in its consultation and development stage, and is not anticipated to be given formal consideration by the provincial government until 2010 at the earliest.

The AIBC is not authorized or required to put legislative proposals to a vote for majority approval. The only matters for which there is such authority are bylaw provisions dealing with subject matter expressly allowed under Section 24 of the Architects Act. Passing legislation is the prerogative of government, not the AIBC.

I4. Q: Why is the AIBC in a hurry to complete the new act by 2010?

A. While there is a pressing need for new legislation, there is no set time frame for the proposed new act; it is entirely dependent on the provincial government’s agenda and priorities. The year 2010 was simply identified as a realistic date based on discussion with government. It should also be noted that by no stretch of the imagination can the legislative change process be described as “hurried”. The process began in 2002. Discussions with the registrants, government and stakeholder groups about new legislation and subsequent work on proposals have been happening for many years (see timeline. The process is ongoing with more consultation planned for the months ahead, hopefully leading up to a finalized proposal to go before the provincial legislature in early 2010.

A: It is simply not true to state that the proposals “dilute” the profession or put architects at risk. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

It is also untrue to state that the process to date has not been transparent. The AIBC has consulted with registrants, government and other stakeholders numerous times over the many years this process has been under way, and such consultation will continue.

However, it is in the public interest to regulate design professionals involved in the creation of the built environment. Accordingly, the AIBC will continue to develop draft legislations to meet the needs of both the public and the profession for the 21st Century. This includes regulation of architects and associated professionals to ensure the public interest is protected.

I6. Is the provincial government even concerned with changes to the Architects Act? I’ve been told the only ones asking for these changes are on AIBC Council.

A: Increasingly, the provincial government has taken steps to bring added scrutiny and regulatory standards to that portion of the built environment which stands unregulated. Its motivation appears to be solely that of protecting the public interest. There are concrete examples of government’s direction in this regard. The Homeowner Protection Office, which has existed under its own provincial legislation for some time now, has ample regulatory enforcement mechanisms at its disposal in order to better protect the public interest. In fact, the HPO’s authority and jurisdiction continues to grow. More recently, the province introduced requirements that home inspectors be licensed with credentials enforced by the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority. Meanwhile, the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia (ASTTBC) continues to seek its own regulatory authority from government over the “exceptions” in the Architects Act. Simply put, additional regulation of the built environment is coming. Thankfully, the AIBC is in the best position to regulate architecture in the profession’s and public’s interest. However, if we don’t fill the vacuum, we can be certain that another organization will. With that comes the likelihood that AIBC Registrants who practice in that area will find themselves either shut out or having to become members of another regulatory body such as the ASTTBC.

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.