Frequently Asked Questions

In November 2018, the Government of British Columbia passed the Professional Governance Act. The Act established the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance, housed in the Attorney General’s office, and consolidated oversight of five professional regulators in the built environment and natural resource sectors. In addition, the Act codified key elements of professional governance, such as Board composition and bylaw creation.

The Professional Governance Act is a result of the Professional Reliance Review (“Review”), which provided 121 recommendations upon reviewing the legislation of five natural resources professions in B.C – engineering and geoscience, forestry, agrology, applied biology, and applied science technology. Spearheaded by the provincial government, the Review was tasked with making recommendations that would “ensure that the highest professional, technical and ethical standards are being applied to resource development in British Columbia”. The legislation will set consistent governance standards across the professions it governs.

On February 5, 2021, the Professional Governance Act (PGA) came into effect. The legislation initially governs the following five professional regulators – the Association of BC Forest Professionals, Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC, BC Institute of Agrologists, College of Applied Biology, and Engineers and Geoscientists BC.

In spring 2022, the provincial government made amendments to the Professional Governance Act to improve consistency and best practices among registered professionals under the PGA, and to allow for the designation of new regulatory bodies. All amendments are now in force, except for some terminology changes (e.g. “Council” to “Board”), which will come into force in spring 2023.

The Architects Act was outdated and in need of modernization. The newest professional regulation legislation in British Columbia is the Professional Governance Act, and the government invested significant resources and effort to create this modern professional governance framework. As outlined in the letter from the government, in recognition of this investment in the PGA, and, more importantly, recognizing that the PGA contains key items that were being considered as amendments to the Architect Act, the AIBC transitioned to the PGA.

The AIBC transitioned to the Professional Governance Act on February 10, 2023. Yes, the Architects Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It has been replaced with the PGA.

No, Architects are not required to place their Certificate of Practice number on documents. Architects are required to practice using the name on their Certificate of Practice.

The reserved scope of practice for architects will essentially be the same, with some improvements and clarity as to when an architect is required by law.

Section 60, or the “exceptions”, is being replaced by an updated “reserved practice” scope in regulations to the PGA that are specific to the practice of architecture. Better harmonization with the BC Building Code and clarity for the public, including clients and building officials, have been key AIBC recommendations.

Yes. Under the Professional Governance Act, the AIBC’s bylaws must include an updated Code of Ethics that contains 12 ethical principles established by the legislation (s. 57(2)), in addition to standards specific to the profession. While the AIBC’s former Code of Ethics under the Architects Act contained most of these principles, there are a few new requirements have been added (e.g., a requirement that architects/firms clearly identify each registrant who has contributed professional work, including recommendations, reports, statements or opinions). 

Yes. Under the Architects Act, not being in good standing was only defined as a member, architectural firm, licensee or associate who failed to pay the annual fee on or before February 1. This definition has been expanded under the PGA.

Under the PGA, the definition of ‘good standing’ now means the state of registration of any Registrant in which all of the following conditions apply:

• The Registrant is not suspended or under a restriction, term, condition or limitation of practice that specifically removes the Registrant from good standing;
• The Registrant is compliant with all Continuing Education System requirements;
• The Registrant is compliant with all applicable Audit and Practice Review requirements;
• If a Firm Registrant, is in compliance with all Certificate of Practice, Professional Liability Insurance, and Firm Update requirements in these Bylaws; and
• The Registrant has no Fees owing to the AIBC

The following response was provided by the OSPG.

Generally speaking, the employment context does not vary the requirements set in the PGA and in regulatory body bylaws for individual registrants.

When a regulatory body regulates firms, the firms become registrants of the regulatory body and like individual registrants, must comply with any requirements for registrants that are set in the PGA, subsequent regulations and the bylaws of the regulatory body.

A regulatory body’s bylaws may differentiate firms that are government entities, sole proprietors and other types of firms. The approach to regulating multi-disciplinary firms is still being determined.

Yes, titles and designations are remaining the same. “Architect” is a protected title and will continue to be restricted to registered architects – as well as “Intern Architect” and “Architectural Technologist”.

Certificate of Practice is unchanged. Certificates of Practice will remain the medium through which firms and registrants are authorized to practice the profession of architecture in British Columbia.

The pathways for registering as an Architect AIBC remain the same. There are several pathways for becoming a registered architect in British Columbia: Internship in Architecture Program, Mutual Recognition Agreements, and Alternative Qualifications. The requirements for these pathways will remain substantially the same to current standards, with important changes to the Broadly Experienced Applicant (BEA) Program. Learn more.

Both the Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program (BEFA) and the Broadly Experienced Applicant Program (BEA) are continuing under the PGA. There are changes to the eligibility requirements for the BEA program, which include clarifying the qualifying experience, expectation on nomination letters, and currency requirements.

Firm regulation is essentially staying the same, as ownership and structure requirements are generally remaining consistent.

There are some minimal changes to note:

• Partnership: There will be an expansion of partnership options to include Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs).
• Inactive Firms: Inactive Firms will apply to all firm structures, and will no longer be limited to only corporations.
• Firm Representative: Firms must designate an Architect ABC to be a “Firm Representative”. The Firm Representative has a specific regulatory role, as per the Bylaws.

All applications, complaints and ongoing matters submitted prior to the transition date (February 10, 2023) will follow the Architects Act processes until they are completed.

Completed applications already submitted to the AIBC (such as applications for registration or firm change requests) will continue to be processed under the requirements of the Architects Act, former AIBC Bylaws, and other requirements. After February 10, all new applications received will require to be submitted using the new published forms in accordance with PGA processes and requirements.

This approach is the same for professional conduct and discipline matters: All complaints received under the Architects Act will follow the Architects Act process, and all discipline matters commenced under the Architects Act will continue and be completed under that law and bylaws to the greatest extent possible.  All new complaints, investigations and discipline matters will follow PGA requirements, new bylaws, and updated processes.

Mandatory continuing education programs that support Indigenous Reconciliation are required under the PGA. While the AIBC already has a Continuing Education System (CES) in place, there are new requirements regarding Truth and Reconciliation incorporated into the program. This means that CES Participants will need to obtain a mandatory number of LUs dedicated towards Truth and Reconciliation.

CES Participants are required to meet mandatory continuing education requirements for learning related to Indigenous history, Truth and Reconciliation and/or engagement. A minimum of two Core Learning Units are required to be earned each reporting period, starting in this current 2022–2024 period. Learn more.

Yes. Under the PGA, CES non-compliance can be addressed as an administrative matter, rather than as a professional conduct complaint. This means that after an appropriate amount of notice and reminders, the suspension/cancellation of a registrant’s registration can take place for those who fail to complete CES requirements. The amendment requires regulators to establish procedures for suspension/cancellation and also for reinstatement of registrants who have become CES compliant. This approach to mandatory professional education as a pre-requisite to continued registration is the norm in professional regulation.

Yes. Under the PGA, the AIBC is able to investigate and discipline former registrants for the time period for which they were registered. This means that a registrant who resigns before or after the beginning of a practice review, investigation, hearing or other proceeding will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the AIBC.

This is a new process, which allows the Institute to take immediate action to protect the public when information is received that there is an imminent risk to public safety resulting from the actions of a registrant. This is pursuant to section 67 of the Professional Governance Act.

If an order is issued under this process, limits or conditions may be imposed on a registrant’s practice or a registrant’s registration may be suspended.

The AIBC will notify the public of the risk and any restrictions imposed.

The registrant will have the opportunity to respond to the extraordinary action and address the limits, conditions, or suspension imposed, in keeping with due process and procedural fairness.

Under the Architects Act, the AIBC published findings and admissions of unprofessional conduct on the AIBC’s website for a period of six months after the effective date of the finding or admission, or until the sanction was satisfied or for one year, whichever period was shorter.  Of note, while publications of unprofessional conduct findings and admissions on the website ended at that time, discipline decisions were available upon request to members of the public at any time pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “FIPPA”).

Under the Professional Governance Act, in keeping with principles of enhanced transparency and public safety, findings and admissions of unprofessional conduct will be published on the AIBC’s website and the online register for the duration of the Registrants registration with the AIBC and for at least 10 years after the Registrant ceases to be registered.  Members of the public can still request discipline decisions at any time pursuant to the FIPPA.

Previously, AIBC Council consisted of 15 voting members: 10 elected by and from eligible voting registrants, four appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative of the UBC School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.

Under the PGA, AIBC Council will be leaner with greater lay (public member) representation. There are seven elected registrant councillors, four appointed lay councillors, and a non-voting past president. In addition, all nominations and appointments will be merit-based as required under the new legislation.

Yes. Under the PGA, registrant councillor terms are three years, whereas under the Architects Act, the term was two years. As well, under the PGA the maximum number of consecutive years that a councillor can serve is six years.

Under the Architects Act, there were 10 elected registrant councillor positions, with five positions having staggered two-year terms. That meant that each year, five councillor positions were up for election.  Because the elected councillor terms under the PGA are now three years, an election may not be required each year.  The new election format will see three positions up for election in the first year, four positions up for election the next year, and no election the following year.

Under the Architects Act, any architect registrant in good standing was eligible for nomination and election as a member of the council, upon the written nomination of five architect registrants in good standing (AIBC Bylaw 21). Under the PGA, registrants will no longer nominate candidates for election to council. Instead, Architect AIBC candidates wishing to run for council will submit their nomination directly to the Nomination Committee, which is a statutory committee under the PGA.

AIBC Council introduced a Nominations Review Committee (NRC) in 2017. Each year, the committee’s mandate was to fairly and objectively evaluate candidates who put their name forward for election, to determine if they met the stated competencies and recruitment requirements of council for that year. Candidates that met the criteria were identified as “endorsed”. Candidates who were not identified as “endorsed” were still eligible to stand for election, provided their nomination forms were in order.

Under the PGA, the Nomination Committee has similar merit-based selection principles and procedures to follow in determining which candidates will run for election, as outlined in Part 3 of the PGA General Regulations. The main difference between the AIBC’s Nominations Review Committee and the PGA’s Nomination Committee is that under the PGA, only registrant candidates nominated by the Nomination Committee will be on the election ballot and may be elected as registrant councillors. Voting registrants (Architects AIBC) will continue to vote for the institute council in each councillor election.

The role of council in governing the Institute has not changed, nor have the fiduciary duties of individual councillors. Council and councillors are still responsible for ensuring the core mandate of protecting the public interest. Central to that mandate continues to be council’s role in regulating the profession including, establishing professional standards and admission requirements, and implementing continuing education standards.

There have been a few changes to council’s responsibilities. For example, council members will no longer sit as disciplinary committee members, as was required under the Architects Act. Instead, a separate discipline committee will be established which will establish panels to conduct hearings. Another example is the making of bylaws, which, council is now responsible for – this means registrants will no longer vote to approve bylaws.

No. The PGA is intended to provide a consistent framework for self-regulating professions that incorporates best practices of professional governance, including regulation in the public interest. The legislation draws a clear line between regulation and advocacy so that organizations under the PGA focus their activities on regulating registrants to serve the public interest. The Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance has provided advocacy guidance, stating that the policy intent is that regulatory bodies avoid activities that may lead to the perception, or reality, that the regulatory body is putting the interests of registrants ahead of the public interest.

The AIBC is the regulatory body for the profession of architecture in British Columbia. The transition to the PGA does not change this identity – rather, it strengthens the AIBC’s mandate of regulating through a responsive regulatory framework, in the interest of the public.

The OSPG worked, and continues to work, with the AIBC to identify areas where OSPG support is critical to AIBC’s engagement with registrants. The OSPG is available to registrants through a variety of mediums – they have presented at townhalls and attended other events for regulators as part of their transition.

Registrants are encouraged to frequently review the OSPG website, including the Engagement section, which is updated on a regular basis.