Integration and Licensure of Internationally Trained ... And Licensure Of... · Integration and...

Integration and Licensure of Internationally Trained Architectural Graduates Study prepared for the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Canadian Architectural Certification Board

Final Report

Prism Economics and Analysis February 2007

Prism Economics and Analysis Suite 404

160 Eglinton Avenue East Toronto, ON

M4P 3B5

Tel: (416)-484-6996 Fax: (416)-494-4147

web site: www.prismeconomics.com

John O’Grady Partner, Prism Economics and Analysis

Direct Phone: (416)-652-0456 Direct Fax: (416)-652-3083

Email: [email protected] web site: www.ogrady.on.ca

International Architectural Graduates Study

Prism Economics and Analysis Page No. 1

Executive Summary The Challenge

A key challenge facing the architectural profession is to find a way to more effectively integrate internationally educated architectural graduates (IAGs) into the profession. To achieve this goal requires an approach that evaluates the prior professional experience and education of IAGs fairly, transparently, and expeditiously in light of the criteria established by regulators to meet their statutory and ethical duties.

The challenges faced by the current system of professional regulation have their origins in the changes to immigration policy which originated in 1985 and have subsequently had a profound impact on the demographics of Canadian society and the various labour markets for university-educated professionals.

An important conclusion of this study is that a re-balancing of the evaluation process is needed such that greater consideration is given to relevant prior professional experience.

The Impact of Immigration Changes

The re-orientation of immigration policy in 1985, and subsequent changes to the policy framework for immigration have had a profound impact on the Canadian labour market. After 1985, immigration levels were increased significantly from under 100,000 in the early 1980s to over 250,000 today. Moreover, immigration today is dominated by ‘economic migrants’. The majority of these immigrants are university-educated professionals.

Immigration now accounts for more than a quarter of new entrants into the architectural work force, and in some regions, a much higher proportion. Survey evidence indicates that approximately one third of these IAGs had more than 10 years of professional experience in architecture prior to immigrating to Canada.

The current system of admitting candidates to the practice of architecture was designed with quite different labour market realities in mind. The number of IAGs, the prior professional experience of many of these IAGs, and the diversity of their experience are posing challenges to the regulatory system that were not anticipated when the system was put in place. These challenges are greater in some jurisdictions than in others. Growing numbers of immigrants, who were experienced professional architects in their countries of origin, feel that the regulatory system in Canada imposes



too many hurdles on their admission to the profession. Many of these individuals feel cheated and misled by the immigration system and by Canada.

IAGs

Surveys of architectural practices, public sector employers, and IAGs, along with focus groups of IAGs conducted across the country lead to a number of findings that are relevant to formulating a strategy for more effective integration of IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession.

• Approximately half of IAGs had seven or more years of professional experience prior to immigrating to Canada. Many of these individuals should be considered International Architectural Professionals whose experience needs to be given greater consideration.

• A large proportion of IAGs are strongly motivated to enter the Canadian architectural profession. Architectural practices report that this high degree of motivation is among the most important advantages of employing IAGs.

• IAGs generally found information resources on the Canadian architectural profession to be adequate. However, there is room for improvement, especially in regard to web-based resources. Survey evidence shows that the web is by far the most important channel for information. There is also an important role for employers as sources of information and advice.

• Only a minority of IAGs obtained information on professional qualification requirements prior to emigrating to Canada. As a result, many IAGs were not prepared for the evaluation and admission procedures that are integral to the system of professional regulation in Canada. For many IAGs, this led to considerable frustration and delay as they did not have the documentation required by the regulatory system in Canada.

• The process of qualifying in the Canadian profession is complex. There is an important role for personal advisors, which is only partially being met through informal channels.

• IAGs are disproportionately employed by large employers.

• Many IAGs have significant difficulties securing employment in the architectural industry. The settlement patterns of IAGs (concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver) accentuate this problem, since the number of IAGs (and domestic graduates) seeking employment in these centres often exceeds the absorption capacity of the architectural industry.

• IAGs generally evaluate their language skills higher than do employers. Indeed, employers report that language issues are among the most important challenges in hiring IAGs.

• Employment obligations often make it challenging to obtain required upgrade training.



• Employers and regulators attach a high degree of importance to understanding the specifically Canadian dimensions of important areas of architectural practice. While IAGs understand this skill requirement, they often under-estimate its importance.

Three Principles

Three principles are proposed as a basis for developing a strategy to integrate more IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession without diluting or lowering standards for admission:

1. All applicants for admission to the profession of architecture in Canada should comply with the Canadian Education Standard (CES) agreed upon by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies.

2. The Canadian system of professional qualification1 should recognize that when any person can demonstrate that he or she has significant non-Canadian experience in practicing architecture that is equivalent to Canadian standards of practice, then there needs to be a way to recognize this experience appropriately.

3. Many IAGs face specific challenges that are different in nature or degree from the challenges faced by domestic graduates. While some of these challenges have their basis in the Canadian regulatory system, many are outside that system. A comprehensive strategy to more effectively integrate IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession needs to address labour market and training challenges, as well as regulatory issues.

Recommendations

Regulatory System

1. Within an overall framework of demonstrated competency, the administration of the ‘common admission standard’ should better accommodate significant prior professional experience where this is relevant. The next phase of work should develop more fully a modus operandi for applying this principle. The schematic on the following page illustrates the path to professional registration and how the evaluation of prior professional experience would be incorporated into this path.

1‘System of professional qualification’ means all components of the ‘common admission

standard’ adopted by the provincial and territorial regulators, namely (1) the system of certifying educational qualifications through the CACB, (2) the requirement to complete an internship under the Intern Architect Program, (3) the requirement to pass the Architectural Registration Examination, i.e., the 9 NCARB examinations, and (4) the requirement to take such other courses as may be prescribed by provincial and territorial regulators.



Schematic Illustrating Proposed Path to Professional Registration

IAG’s and Syllabus graduates, accredited and non-accredited graduates

Canadian Architectural Certification Board:

evaluates academic credentials

acceptable: proceed

not acceptable: deficiencies

identified

1. evaluate experience & determine equivalencies if possible

2. additional study required: syllabus or other institutional courses

CACB certification awarded

Provincial or Territorial Regulator:

evaluates internship experience and specific competencies

acceptable: proceed


identified

1. re-evaluate experience and determine remedies, if possible

2. additional coursework required: regulators and educational institutions

Examintion(s)

Registration



2. The provincial and territorial regulators, the CACB and the RAIC should establish a common web portal that provides detailed information on the Canadian system of professional qualification and on the Canadian architectural industry. This web portal should include a check list of documents that an IAG should obtain prior to immigrating to Canada.

3. The RAIC, as the key advocacy body in the profession, should facilitate meetings between the CACB and the provincial and territorial regulators and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to ensure that Canadian Immigration Officers have a package of complete and current information and references to provide to prospective immigrants to Canada who identify architecture as their intended occupation. IAGs contemplating immigration to Canada should be encouraged to at least initiate, and, when practical, complete their CACB certification prior to immigrating

4. The CACB needs to upgrade its computer network and systems so as to be able to implement a certification database solution that would enable the CACB to publish on its web site a list of universities and programmes and the relevant years for which it has calendars and course descriptions on file. The CACB should publicize its positive administrative practices of not requiring re-submission of calendars and course descriptions that are already found in its files and not requiring translation of such documents by each individual applicant. The CACB and the provincial and territorial regulators should explore ways of integrating their electronic systems to enable a better access and exchange of candidates’ information. Such integration would eliminate the need to submit duplicate documentation to the CACB and then to the provincial or territorial regulators. This would be cost effective for the CACB and the regulators and would be helpful to applicants.

5. The RAIC, CACB and the provincial and territorial regulators should propose to the federal government that all reasonable costs incurred by an IAG in obtaining and translating documentation for the CACB and/or the provincial and territorial regulators and taking required courses should be made tax deductible. This policy would also be relevant to other professions. Therefore, the RAIC should also consider consulting with other national organizations representing regulated professions concerning a common representation on this matter.

Labour Market

6. The RAIC and the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies should monitor job opening trends relative to estimated demand. The proposed single web portal should also provide a clearing house for employment opportunities. Immigration counsellors should encourage persons contemplating immigration to Canada to take careful note of current labour market information when determining where they will settle.



Training

7. Consideration should be given to developing courses that specifically address areas of practice that are unfamiliar to many IAGs. These would include, but not be limited to: building science, construction materials, product and construction standards, construction methods and the relevance to design of climate, environmental, and seismic factors. These courses could be delivered by regulatory bodies, accredited Canadian schools or architecture, designated educational institutions, or under the auspices of the RAIC Syllabus Program.

8. Consideration should be given to making greater use of ‘distance education’ as an optional channel, where practical, for IAGs who require upgrade training. Online courses should be used where feasible. These courses could be offered by an accredited Canadian university school of architecture, the RAIC Syllabus Program, or any other provider approved by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies.

Support

9. Efforts should be made to personalize, to a greater degree, where feasible, the process of navigating through the procedures required to gain admission to the profession.

10. Provincial and territorial regulatory bodies should take steps to formalize a process for ensuring that they receive ongoing input into the distinct challenges faced by IAGs seeking to enter the architectural profession.

Funding

11. There are financial costs associated with developing and then implementing Recommendation No. 1. These costs include, among others: (1) developing competency standards, (2) developing standards for evaluating dossiers, (3) comparing the scope, regulation and standards of practice in other jurisdictions where IAGs are obtaining non-Canadian experience, and (4) developing the broad consensus required for national standards to be adopted. As well, Recommendation No. 4 will also entail significant costs. External support will be needed to assist in meeting these costs.

P

February 2007



Integration and Licensure of Internationally

Trained Architectural Graduates

Contents

1. Introduction 9

2. The Canadian Architectural Profession 16

3. Recent Trends in Immigration 35

4. A Profile of Internationally-Educated Architectural Graduates 43

5. Recommendations 67

Appendices

I Steering Committee

II List of Persons Interviewed

III Roundtable, McGill University – September 21, 2006

IV Surveys



1. Introduction

Challenges to the Profession

In 1985, immigration policy was significantly changed. Immigration intakes were increased from annual levels that were often under100,000 to 250,000 today. In recent years, immigration intakes have been kept high over the full business cycle, a marked departure from the previous approach which tied immigration intakes to estimates of the labour market’s absorptive capacity. Equally important, the composition of the immigration intake also changed. Prior to 1985, immigration intakes were dominated by family re-unification and meeting the economy’s need for skilled and semi-skilled manual labour. After 1985, university-trained ‘economic migrants’ became the largest category of new immigrants. The majority of these immigrants were qualified in their countries of origin for occupations which, in Canada, are regulated in one way or another.2

New labour market realities have arisen as a result of the re-orientation of immigration policy. Immigrants now constitute at least one quarter of new entrants each year into the architectural profession. In some regions, immigration supplies more than half of all new entrants. Many of these international architectural graduates (IAGs) had significant professional experience in architecture before immigrating to Canada.

The current system of admitting persons to the practice of architecture was designed with quite different labour market realities in mind. While various ad hoc changes have been made to adapt the current system, the tension has continued to increase. This has resulted in three challenges to the profession.

First, many individuals who were trained in architecture outside Canada and who practised architecture professionally before coming to Canada perceive the regulatory requirements for registration as de facto barriers that prevent them from working in the occupation for which they were trained and, on the basis of which training and experience, their application for immigration was accepted. These individuals feel cheated and misled by the immigration system and by Canada.

The second challenge to the architectural profession comes from the increasing number of persons who are trained in architecture and who are working in the architectural industry, but who are not registered as professional architects. There is evidence of this trend among Canadian graduates, as well as international architectural graduates (IAGs). However, the increase in the number of IAGs has

2 Broadly the three types of occupational regulation are: (1) licensure with practice statutorily

restricted to license-holders, (2) statutorily reserved title accompanied by voluntary licensure, but with practice not restricted to license holders, and (3) voluntary certification. While no studies of the aggregate role of occupational regulation have been undertaken in Canada, a U.S. study estimates that approximately 25% of U.S. employment is subject to some form of occupational regulation. Morris M. Kleiner, Licensing Occupations, Upjohn Institute (2006).



magnified the trend. As will be discussed later in this report, we estimate that at least 25-30% of persons identified by the 2001 Census as ‘architects’ were not registered. As the number of IAGs in Canada increases, this proportion will increase. At some point, the growing number of persons working in architecture outside the system of professional regulation will weaken that system.

The third challenge to the profession is essentially moral. On its web site, the RAIC describes architecture as “a passion, a vocation, a calling…”. It is simply wrong that a large and growing number of individuals should immigrate to Canada with the training and experience that qualified them to practice architecture in their country of origin and perceive that there are too many barriers for them to enter their profession in Canada.

In conducting this study we found a strong desire on the part of many provincial and territorial regulators and other professional bodies to develop a ‘better way’ for dealing with broadly experienced and internationally educated architectural graduates. Some provincial organizations have introduced advisory or mentoring programs to assist IAGs. Others are considering such initiatives. A number of provincial organizations have reviewed their procedures for evaluating non-Canadian experience with a view to better taking account of the experience that many IAGs have. For its part, the CACB has endeavoured to accelerate its handling of certification applications from IAGs and to provide advice to IAGs on how to most effectively prepare their submissions.

The provincial and territorial regulators are strongly aware of their statutory and ethical duty to ensure high standards of professional competence. Over the past 10-15 years, several steps have been taken to strengthen professional training. These have included (1) a general movement to make the first professional degree in architecture a master’s level degree, (2) ensuring rigour and relevance in the internship program, and (3) introducing the requirement to complete the Architectural Registration Examination. These trends, it should be noted, are not unique to Canada, but have occurred across North America. Having developed a Common Admission Standard that reflects these changes, there is no wish on the part of regulators to weaken or undo the changes that were put in place. Regulators also stress that clients (and the public) have a right to expect that licensed professional architects are competent not only in design and project management, but also know the legal environment of construction, and the way in which the Canadian construction industry operates. As well, regulators stress the need for all applicants for admission to the profession, i.e., both IAGs and non-IAGs, to be treated fairly, equitably and without favour.

The challenge is to develop a strategy that integrates more IAGs into the Canadian profession. This strategy will need to take account of factors that are unique to IAGs, such as requirements for particular types of training and better information on the architectural industry in Canada. Most importantly, a strategy to integrate more IAGs into the Canadian profession will need to develop a way to better evaluate and better take into account the relevant prior professional experience of IAGs. The strategy will need to do this in a way that does not weaken or compromise the obligation of regulators to fulfill statutory and ethical duties.



P

This study was commissioned by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. A list of Steering Committee members is provided at Appendix I.

Objectives of the Study

The study has three purposes:

1. to construct a profile of internationally educated architectural graduates (IAGs),

2. to examine the challenges and barriers that IAGs perceive to becoming fully registered professional architects, and

3. to make recommendations for consideration by the CACB, the RAIC, and the provincial and territorial regulators.

Research Methods

The study is based on several methodologies. Previous studies of IAGs were reviewed as well as studies of internationally-trained professionals in other fields. Relevant data were drawn from a special tabulation of the 2001 Census. As well, we also collected administrative data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies, the accredited Canadian university schools and faculties of architecture, and the CACB. Interviews were conducted with senior administrative staff of the provincial and territorial regulators, various architectural practices across Canada, public sector employers, and settlement and advocacy associations that assist IAGs. Figure No. 1 summarizes the interviews. A list of persons interviewed is provided at Appendix II.

Figure No. 1 Distribution of Interviews Conducted for the Study

Interviews No. Provincial and Territorial Regulators 10 Architectural Practices 16 Public Sector Employers 6 RAIC Syllabus Program 1 Settlement and Advocacy Organizations 13

Total 46



Focus groups were held with IAGs in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. A total of 62 IAGs participated in these focus groups.

A Roundtable was conducted in Montreal involving participants from the provincial and territorial associations, institutes and ordres, the CACB, and the RAIC. A list of participants in the Roundtable is reproduced at Appendix III.

Finally three web-based surveys were conducted, respectively of architectural practices, public sector employers that employ professional architects, and IAG. The surveys are reproduced at Appendix IV. Each of the three surveys was administered in English and French. Respondents also had the opportunity to complete the survey by mail or tele-facsimile. The survey of IAGs was anonymous. Identification of architectural practices and public sector employers was optional. However, 66% of responding practices and all public sector employers identified themselves. Architectural practices were contacted through email communications from the RAIC and email and fax communications from the project team. IAGs were contacted through employers, settlement and advocacy organizations and ethnic media. Several of the provincial and territorial associations, institutes and ordres also brought the survey to the attention of their members.

Figure No. 2 summarizes the survey returns by region.

Figure No. 2 Regional Distribution of Survey Responses

Atlantic Provinces

Quebec Ontario Manitoba-Saskatchewan

Alberta B.C. and Territories

Not Identified

Total

Architectural Practices3 25 55 122 24 45 65 10 346

Public Sector Employers4 2 6 8 2 2 2 0 22

IAGs 6 80 141 26 59 152 0 464

The architectural practices that responded to the survey reported total architectural and architecturally- related employment of 2,179 persons. (This excludes non-architectural employees, such as clerical and other administrative staff, but includes drafting and other technical staff). The responding practices and public sector employers reported a total of 1,070 registered architects. This is 14.5% of the 7,400 registered architects reported by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies. The responding

3 Some architectural practices provided aggregate data covering more than one province. In

these circumstances, the location of the responding office (typically the head office) is used to identify the region. This tabulation procedure may understate the representation of practices in some regions.

4 Some federal public sector respondents included data reported for all operations across

Canada. Therefore the table overstates the Ontario representation.



practices also employed 706 intern architects. This is 23% of the number of intern architects reported by the regulatory bodies.

On a regional basis, the survey responses are somewhat over-weighted to Atlantic Canada and the Prairie provinces and under-weighted to Quebec. Figure No. 3 compares the regional distribution of survey returns with the distribution of architectural practices, based on Statistics Canada data for 2005.

Figure No. 3 Regional Distribution of Survey Responses

compared with Regional Distribution of Architectural Practices as Estimated by Statistics Canada, 2005

Regional Share of

Survey Returns (excluding not identified)

Regional Share of Practices, 2005

(Statistics Canada)5 Atlantic 7.4% 4.0% Quebec 16.3% 24.3% Ontario 36.5% 37.1% Manitoba-Saskatchewan 7.1% 3.4% Alberta 13.4% 10.2% B.C. & Territories 19.3% 20.9% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Approximately half (49%) of the responding practices currently employ IAGs.

Figure No. 4 shows the size distribution of practices that responded to the survey. The survey results are broadly consistent with industry patterns.

Figure No. 4 Distribution of Practices by Number of Architectural Employees

(excludes clerical and other administrative employees)

Percent

1 - 5 Employees 62% 6 – 10 Employees 22% 11 – 20 Employees 11% 21 – 50 Employees 4% 51+ Employees 1% Total 100%

5 Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Table 360-0004



The survey of IAGs attracted participation from 464 respondents. Figure No. 5 summarizes our promotion activities related to this survey.

Figure No. 5 Promotion Activities: IAG Survey

Promotional Communication of IAG Survey

Faxed, emailed or phoned

Successfully contacted

Media Contacts 315 81% Settlement Agencies/Advocacy Groups/ESL-FSL programs 387 83% Provincial Associations 11 100% Architectural firms 1,597 93% Public Sector Employers 18 94% Total 2,328 90%

Overall, 69% of the IAGs who participated in the survey indicated that they are currently working in an architectural practice. However, data from the Census indicate that in 2001, as many as three-quarters of IAGs were not working as professional architects, though some may have been employed in architectural practices or in other occupations that drew on their professional training. Our survey sample is sufficiently large to permit a stratified analysis to be done of IAGs who are working in architecture and those who are not.

Figure No. 6 compares the regional distribution of respondents to our IAG survey with the regional distribution from the 2001 Census of persons who were 25 or older when they immigrated to Canada and reported having a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture. As can be seen from Figure No. 6, our survey results are over-weighted to B.C. and Alberta and under-weighted to Ontario, relative to the 2001 Census. To some degree, however, this may reflect actual shifts in employment opportunities in architecture since the 2001 Census.

Figure No. 6 Regional Distribution: IAG Survey Returns and IAGs per 2001 Census

IAG Survey

2001 Census

Atlantic 1% 1% Quebec 17% 14% Ontario 30% 53% Manitoba-Saskatchewan 6% 2% Alberta 13% 8% B.C 33% 22% Total 100% 100%



Outline of Report

Chapter 2 of this study presents an economic overview of the architectural industry in Canada and a description of the architectural profession. The chapter summarizes the professional training of architects in Canada and the Canadian system of professional registration. This chapter also discusses demand and supply trends. Finally Chapter 2 also notes some important differences between the scope of practice and the regulation of architecture in Canada and in other jurisdictions.

Chapter 3 describes recent immigration trends and highlights the central importance of recent changes in immigration policy. This chapter also presents specific data on IAGs.

Chapter 4 presents a profile of IAGs based on the various research methods described earlier. This chapter also examines the principal barriers and challenges encountered by IAGs seeking to enter the architectural profession in Canada and the perspectives of employers and regulators.

Chapter 5 sets out recommendations for consideration.

Acknowledgements

Members of the Steering Committee provided invaluable assistance and advice. The CACB, RAIC and the provincial and territorial associations, institutes and ordres provided considerable assistance in gathering data and in contacting architectural practices and IAGs. A number of the provincial and territorial associations, institutes and ordres hosted focus group sessions. Settlement and advocacy organizations also provided the consulting team with assistance in reaching IAGs. In Halifax, the Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Agency (MISA) also hosted a focus group of IAGs.

P



2. The Canadian Architectural Profession This chapter deals with four topics:

1. a statistical portrait of the architectural labour force in Canada, including an estimate of the number of internationally educated architectural graduates (IAGs),

2. a description of the education, experience and registration requirements for admission to the architectural profession in Canada,

3. a discussion of how core features of the practice of architecture in Canada often differ from those in other jurisdictions,

4. a discussion of supply and demand trends and how these shape both the profession’s need for IAGs and the scope for integrating IAGs into the Canadian profession.

In this section and throughout the report, we use the following terminology:

Figure No. 7 Terminology

Architect an individual registered as an architect by a provincial or territorial regulator.

Regulator a provincial or territorial association, institute or ordre which is empowered by statute to admit persons to the profession of architecture. In all provinces and territories, a scope of architectural practice is defined by statute and restricted to persons admitted to the profession by the regulator. Some jurisdictions also license practices in addition to registering individual architects.

First Professional Degree a university degree that is the minimum and usual requirement for practising architecture. A first professional degree may be a bachelor degree or a Master’s degree.

Intern or Intern-Architect an individual whose educational qualifications have been certified by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) and who has been registered by a provincial or territorial regulator under an Intern Architect Program (IAP).

Architectural Labour Force persons classed by the Census as architects regardless of whether they are formally registered or whether they have a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture. The National Occupational Classification (NOC) system maintained by Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) stipulates that licensure is a requirement in its occupational description of an



architect (NOC 2151). However, the National Occupation Classification – Statistics (NOC-S), which is used by Statistics Canada, and which is based on the NOC system, omits licensure as a condition for statistical classification as an architect (NOC-S: CO 51). While most persons classed as architects are employed in the architectural services industry, some are not. These include persons employed in planning roles, asset managers, teachers, etc.

International Architectural Graduate (IAG)

a person who obtained their bachelor or first professional degree in architecture outside Canada and is now a permanent resident in Canada. Most IAGs are immigrants to Canada. However, some IAGs may be natural born Canadians (or Canadians who immigrated to Canada under the age of 18), but who obtained their university training in architecture outside Canada. An individual who obtained their first professional degree in architecture in Canada on a student visa and then subsequently immigrated to Canada would not be considered an IAG.

Architectural Services Industry

businesses (which may or may not be incorporated) that provide architectural services. In some provinces and territories, a ‘practice registration’ is required. In all jurisdictions, certain types of architectural services are exempt from regulation and may be provided by persons who are not registered architects. A small minority of businesses in the architectural industry, therefore, may be operated by persons who are not registered as architects or who may not have a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture. Data on the ‘architectural services industry’ is derived from Statistics Canada’s Annual Survey of Architectural Services.

Statistical Profile of the Canadian Architectural Labour Force

Figure No. 8 summarizes data provided by the provincial and territorial associations, institutes and ordres on the number of registered architects and interns (or ‘intern architects’) in their jurisdiction. Some architects are registered in more than one province or territory. Not all of the provincial regulators were able to report separate tabulations for resident and non-resident architects. Based on these data, we estimate that in 2006 there were somewhat fewer than 7,400 registered architects in Canada and approximately 3,036 intern-architects.



Figure No. 8 No. of Registered Architects and Intern-Architects by Province

as reported by Provincial and Territorial Associations, Institutes and Ordres, December 31, 2006 (provided by RAIC)

Registered / Licensed Architects Registered Interns / Intern Architects Resident Non-Resident Resident Non-Resident BC / Yukon 1,145 256 421 24 Alberta 395 285 173 35 Saskatchewan 78 95 22 0 Manitoba 147 125 67 13 Ontario 2,167 320 1,145 81 Quebec 2,555 211 877 25 New Brunswick 73 100 15 1 Nova Scotia 152 n/a 53 n/a Prince Edward Island 14 52 4 0 Newfoundland and Labrador 32 24 3 2 North West Territories 21 11 0 2 Total 6,779 1,479 2,780 183

The 2001 Census estimates that in 2001, there were 28,635 persons who held a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture. Of these, 7,135 immigrated to Canada and were age 25 or older at the time their emigration. Some of these 7,135 immigrant Canadians may have obtained their architectural degree in Canada and subsequently applied for permanent residence. Others may have pursued their architectural studies after emigrating to Canada. However, it is reasonable to suppose that most of the 7,135 obtained their bachelor or first professional degree in architecture prior to emigrating to Canada. We can estimate, therefore, that in 2001, somewhere between 20% and 25% of persons with a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture were IAGs. It is likely that the 2006 Census will show that this proportion has increased.

Figure No. 9 shows the approximate correlation of employment in the architectural labour force and a bachelor or first professional degree in architecture.



Figure No. 9 Approximate Pattern of University Qualification in Architecture

and Employment as an Architect, based on 2001 Census6

6 Notes to Figure No. 9: (1) some of the 7,135 persons statistically classed as IAGs may have obtained their degree in Canada on a student visa and subsequently immigrated to Canada, (2) some of both the 21,500 Domestic Graduates and some of the 7,135 IAGs may hold degrees that are incommensurate with the CES.

21,500 Domestic Graduates (Certified and Non-

Certified)

7,135IAGs

(Certified and Non-Certified)

28,635 Bachelor or First

Professional Degree in Architecture

11,605 In the Architectural

Labour Force

1,820In the Architectural

Labour Force

11,355 Working as Architects (Census Definition) in

the Architectural Industry

+ =

+ =

1,455 Working as Architects

(Census Definition) outside the

Architectural Industry

260 Architects

not Employed

355 Unaccounted

+

+

+



Five significant trends should be noted:

1. In 2001, approximately 46% of domestic graduates were not working as architects. Some of these individuals may have been in other occupations in the architectural industry or in occupations outside the architectural industry that are architecturally related but classified differently.

2. In 2001, 74% of IAGs were not working as architects. Many IAGs may have been working in lower level occupations in the architectural industry, such as drafting or in occupations outside the architectural industry that are architecturally related but classified differently.

3. In 2001, IAGs represented approximately 13.5% of the architectural labour force.

4. Approximately 11% of persons classed by the Census as architects were working outside the architectural industry.

5. Although the Census reported that 13,235 persons works as an architect during 2001, the total number of persons registered by provincial and territorial regulators (using 2006 data) was 6,779 architects and 2,780 intern architects (total of 9,559). At least 3,676 persons (28%), and perhaps more, were therefore working as architects (according to the Census definition), but were outside the system of professional registration.

We do not have information on the proportion of domestic graduates or IAGs who were working in the architectural industry, but not as architects, or were working in an architecturally-related occupation. However, Census data do indicate that at least 12% of the architectural labour force was working outside of the architectural industry.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) reports that from 1990 to 2000, 2,178 persons accepted for permanent residence in Canada reported architecture as their intended occupation. These individuals would have been required to demonstrate that they held a bachelor or first degree in architecture. It is useful to compare CIC data with Census estimates. It appears that in 2001, only 30% of IAGs had immigrated to Canada within the previous 10 years; 70% of IAGs had been resident in Canada for more than 10 years at the time of the 2001 Census. In other words, most IAGs had been in Canada for a sufficiently long period of time to develop their language skills, their understanding of Canadian norms, and if working in architecture, their understanding of Canadian materials, standards and practices.

The architectural labour force is aging. Figure No. 10 shows the changes in the age structure of the architectural labour force from 1991 to 2001. It is notable that the proportion of the architectural work



force in the 45-and-older age group increased over the period from 30% to 44%. This implies an increasing exit rate from the architectural labour force over the coming decade and an increased replacement demand.

Figure No. 10 Age Structure of Architectural Labour Force, 1991 – 2001 (Defined on the basis of Role, not Education or Licensure)

Statistics Canada, Census

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65 yearsand over

199119962001

In 2001, 61% of persons in the architectural labour force were employees. Of the remaining 39%, who were self-employed, 24% were incorporated and 15% were unincorporated. Forty-seven percent of self-employed persons employed other persons while 53% were independent operators, i.e., self-employed and employing no paid help.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2005, there were 4,537 architectural practices in Canada. These practices generated revenues of approximately $2.1 billion. Figure No. 11 shows the regional distribution of architectural practices and the regional distribution of revenues generated by architectural practices.



Figure No. 11 Regional Distribution of Architectural Practices and Revenue Generated by Practices, 2005

(Statistics Canada, CANSIM)

Regional Share of Practices

Regional Share of Revenues7

Atlantic 4.0% 3.4% Quebec 24.3% 16.9% Ontario 37.1% 43.6% Manitoba-Saskatchewan 3.4% 4.2% Alberta 10.2% 12.8% B.C. & Territories 20.9% 19.2% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Over the period 1997 to 2005, the revenues of architectural practices increased by an average of 8.8% annually, though there were important regional differences in this trend. In the Atlantic region, for example, revenues grew by only 3.5% annually, whereas in Alberta, revenues increased by 9.5%. It should be noted, however, that the revenue generated by architectural practices is strongly tied to construction spending and is therefore subject to significant cyclical fluctuations.

Architectural Education and Professional Regulation in Canada

In Canada, the practice of architecture is restricted to persons who are registered by provincial and territorial regulatory bodies. Each provincial and territorial statute defines the scope of work that is restricted to persons who are registered. Typically these statutes exempt from coverage structures under a certain size or a certain height. (In Ontario, for example, buildings under 600 square metres and three storeys or lower in height are exempted.) Non-structural aspects of interior design, e.g., finishes, partitioning, etc. are also exempted.

Access to the architectural profession is governed by the Common Admission Standard (CAS) adopted by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies. The CAS has three elements: education, experience and examinations. Figure No. 12 summarizes the CAS:

7 These data show the region in which revenues were recorded. Non-resident practices may earn

fees in one region, but report them in their home region.



Figure No. 12 Schemata of the Common Admission Standard (CAS) adopted by the Provincial and Territorial Regulators

Education 1. a first professional degree in architecture that is commensurate with standards established by the provincial and territorial regulators and certified as such by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB), regardless of where those educational qualifications were obtained, or

2. completion of the non-degree Dipl. Arch. pursuant to the Syllabus Program of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and certification of this training by the CACB as commensurate with standards established by provincial and territorial regulators.

Experience 1. completion of an internship of 5,600 hours under the Intern in Architecture Program (IAP);

2. some regulatory bodies require a portion of these 5,600 hours to be completed within the geographical jurisdiction of the regulatory body;

3. internship hours must be completed in specified areas of practice, under the supervision of a registered architect and documented with a Canadian Experience Record Book.

Examination(s) 1. as of 2006, pass the Architectural Registration Examination (ARE) of the U.S. National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The ARE comprises 9 computer-based examinations;

2. complete such additional professional practice courses, as may be prescribed by the provincial or territorial regulatory body;

3. participate in such continuing professional education programs as may be prescribed by the provincial or territorial regulatory body.

First Professional Degree The vast majority of registered architects hold a first professional degree in architecture. In Canada, there are 10 university programs in architecture that are accredited by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). As well, there is at least one other university program that is not accredited. (See discussion of ‘accreditation’ below).

Throughout North America, the past 25 years have seen a major reform of university curricula in architecture. Prior to these changes architectural training was undertaken entirely at the undergraduate level. However, bachelor’s programmes in architecture were typically five years in duration and required a thesis or dissertation. This contrasted with other bachelor’s programmes which were typically three or four years in duration and required no thesis or dissertation. Changes in architecture curriculum were also prompted by the “Princeton Report” which argued that architects required a greater breadth and depth in their studies.8 In Canada, this has led to the designation of a master’s degree as the first professional degree. Universities establish and administer their own criteria for admission to a master’s degree program in architecture.

8 The formal title of the “Princeton Report” is A Study of Education for Environmental Design,

A Report by Princeton University for the American Institute of Architects, December, 1967



In 2006, there were 304 graduates from accredited Canadian university programs in architecture. Some of these graduates may have been foreign students who may or may not intend to take up permanent residence in Canada.

RAIC Syllabus Program An alternative route to obtaining the requisite educational qualifications is the self-paced Syllabus Program sponsored by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). The Syllabus Program was established in 1978 and was based on syllabus programs previously operated by some provincial architectural associations. Courses are delivered through a combination of distance learning and studio work. At present the Syllabus Program is available only in English.

The Syllabus Program maintains an open admission policy. Annual intake of new student is 25-50, although some of these students are referrals from the CACB and register only to take certain courses required to make up deficiencies in their previous university training. In recent years, the Syllabus Program has had 220-260 students. However, the majority of students do not complete the full Syllabus Program. Over its existence, the Syllabus Program has graduated only 1-3 students per year. Virtually all students take the Syllabus Program on a part-time basis. Completion of the full program typically requires approximately 10 years of study.

The Syllabus Program is supported by instructors drawn from the practising profession. Student fees are the chief source of revenue for the Syllabus Program. CACB Accreditation and Certification The Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) was established in 1976 by the provincial regulatory bodies to assess and certify the first professional degree of university architecture graduates. This assessment and certification procedure applies to both Canadian graduates and international graduates. Certification attests that the courses taken to obtain a first professional degree in architecture meet the requirements set by the provincial and territorial regulators. These requirements are set out in the Canadian Education Standard (CES). CES requirements apply to the subjects that must be covered, the minimum time that must be devoted to those subjects, and the rigour of curriculum standards. It should be noted that many university schools and faculties of architecture (both in Canada and abroad) allow electives which may be outside or below the educational requirements established by the CES. Consequently, it is not automatic that a degree in architecture (including a Canadian degree) will be certified. In 1991, the mandate of the CACB was expanded by the provincial and territorial regulators to accredit Canadian university programs in architecture. Accreditation of a program means that all courses within that program meet the requirements of the provincial and territorial regulators. Certification of a degree from an accredited program therefore involves only an examination of transcripts and confirmation that the required courses were taken. When an applicant for CACB certification has a degree from a non-accredited program (whether in Canada or abroad), each course must be assessed to



determine whether the applicant’s degree is commensurate with the CES requirements for a first professional degree. Assessing the courses taken for a degree from a non-accredited program requires an examination of university calendars and/or course descriptions for the years in which the applicant studied, as well as academic transcripts. Specifically, to evaluate courses, the CACB requires information on course content, lecture hours, studio hours, and duration of academic term. In the case of foreign universities, this may require a valid translation (or synopsis) of calendars or course descriptions. The CACB maintains a library of non-Canadian university calendars and course descriptions. In many instances, though not all, the CACB therefore is able to waive the requirement to provide calendars or course descriptions. Where special circumstances, such as civil conflict, make it impossible to provide original documentation, the CACB will consider a detailed description of courses taken. In some instances, studio work completed during university studies is also required or strongly requested to establish that the level of studies was commensurate with requirements established by the provincial and territorial regulators. The system and standards of accreditation and certification administered by the CACB on behalf of the provincial and territorial regulators is commensurate with the system of accreditation and certification administered in the United States, although in the U.S., separate bodies administer accreditation and certification. There is reciprocal recognition of university programs accredited by the CACB in Canada and university programs accredited by the National Architectural Accreditation Board in the U.S. However, there is no reciprocal recognition of certifications. In the U.S., the certification process is administered by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) on behalf of the state regulatory boards. At present, there is reciprocal recognition only for US architectural programs, although the CACB is open to establishing such reciprocity with other jurisdictions where there is a comparable system of accrediting university programs and where the standards for such accreditation are commensurate with the CES. Figure No. 13 summarizes data on applications for CACB certification.

Figure No. 13 Applications for Certification Received by CACB

Domestic Graduates from

Accredited Programs

International Graduates from

Accredited Programs

Grandfathered* Domestic Graduates from Non-Accredited

Programs

International Graduates from Non-Accredited

Programs

RAIC Syllabus

2005 215 35 16 7 92 2 2004 183 32 20 10 90 2003 206 37 11 12 113 2002 202 35 12 24 163 2001 136 15 22 9 189



In recent years, some accredited universities have taken steps to expedite the certification process of their graduates. In 2005, approximately 2/3’s of Canadian graduates from accredited programs applied for CACB certification. The proportion of IAGs that apply for CACB certification is much lower. Over the period 2001 to 2005, 647 IAGs applied for CACB certification. During this same period, 1,588 persons were granted permanent residence in Canada and indicated that architecture was their intended occupation. An IAG might be resident in Canada for a number of years prior to applying for CACB certification. This could be the result of a lack of knowledge of Canadian registration procedures, family circumstances, a decision to pursue non-architectural employment, the need to acquire English or French language skills, or the need to obtain documentation required by the CACB. There is, therefore, no necessary correspondence between the number of persons who reported architecture as their intended occupation and who were granted permanent resident status between 2001 and 2005 and the number of IAGs who applied for CACB certification. Nevertheless, 40% is a reasonable estimate of the proportion of IAGs who currently pursue CACB certification. Internship / Experience Requirements Before applying for registration, an applicant must complete an internship. Internship consists of a structured transition between formal education and registration as a professional architect. Architecture is not unique in requiring an internship. Internship is common in many professions, including law (system of articles), engineering, various medical professions (internship and/or residency), accounting, etc. Internships are administered by the provincial and territorial regulators. However, by agreement among the regulators, internships follow the 5,600-hour Intern in Architecture Program set out by the provincial and territorial regulators.9 Internship hours must be supervised by a registered architect and documented in the Canadian Experience Record Book(CERB). Internship hours must cover specified practice areas. These are divided into a mandatory component (a minimum of 3,720 hours) and a discretionary component (a maximum of 1,880 hours). The mandatory component covers: design and construction documents, construction administration, project and office management, and various related professional and community activities. The discretionary component includes work in other disciplines, post graduate study, teaching and research, undergraduate experience, and experience under the RAIC Syllabus program. Credited experience can be acquired in any jurisdiction in Canada or in the United States. (In the United States, the Intern Development Program (IDP) is structured along lines commensurate with the IAP). Credited experience also may be acquired outside Canada or the United States while an individual is registered in the IAP. Of particular relevance to IAGs, an individual also may apply to have his or her non-Canada/non-U.S. professional experience recognized towards the 5,600-hour requirement. Recognition is subject to documentation requirements and an interview, as determined by

9 Committee of Canadian Architectural Councils (CCAC), The Internship in Architecture

Program – 2nd Edition, 2001



the provincial or territorial regulator. Some regulators require that a minimum number of hours be acquired within the geographic jurisdiction of the regulator. Internship requires employment as an intern by an architectural firm (or other specifically designated employer) and direct supervision by a registered architect who is either a principal, a shareholder or an employee of the architectural firm. As well, an intern must have a ‘mentor’ who is a registered architect or a retired architect and who is not a shareholder, principal or employee of the firm in which the internship has been established. In principal, a 5,600-hour internship can be completed in three years. In practice, however, it usually takes approximately 4 years or longer for an intern to acquire the minimum required credited hours in each of the specified areas of practice.

Architectural Registration Examination (NCARB Examinations) The provincial and territorial regulators have determined that as part of the Common Admission Standard (CAS), applicants for professional registration must successfully complete the Architectural Registration Examination (ARE) that is developed and administered by the U.S. - based National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). NCARB is the national body comprising all of the state-level architectural registration boards. Requiring completion of the ARE is viewed by the provincial and territorial regulators as promoting a high standard of professional competence and strategically supporting what is currently a high degree of reciprocal recognition for Canadian architectural qualifications.10 For the many Canadian firms that undertake architectural work in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions where U.S. equivalent qualifications are important, completion of the ARE can be a requirement. The ARE currently comprises nine computer-based examinations. As of May 2006, success rates for first time examinees ranged from 63% to 77%.11 Tests are administered on an as-requested basis by a designated third party testing centre. Consideration is currently being given to developing a Canadian Architectural Registration Examination.

10 NCARB and the Committee of Canadian Architectural Councils (CCAC) have signed an

agreement that provides for the reciprocal registration of architects who are practicing in a jurisdiction that has signed a Letter of Undertaking. This Letter of Undertaking provides for the acceptance of the conditions of the NCARB/CCAC Agreement and also permits the jurisdiction/province to stipulate any special requirements, such as demonstration of knowledge of local laws, seismic forces, personal interview, or other unique requirements that all applicants for registration must meet.

11 www.ncarb.org



Other Course Requirements Most provincial and territorial regulators require applicants for registration to take one or more courses related to professional practice. As well, most regulators also require registered architects to participate in continuing professional education. Alternative Qualification (B.C. only)12 Sec. 37 of the Architects Act of B.C. is unique in allowing the provincial regulator (the Architectural Institute of British Columbia - AIBC) to admit persons to registration based on previous professional experience, nomination by five registered members of the AIBC, and recommendation letters from two registered members of the AIBC. The minimum professional experience for ‘alternative qualification’ is 15 years employment by a registered member of the AIBC or by an architect outside B.C. who is deemed by the AIBC to be capable and qualified, or 8 years of experience as a qualified, professional architect outside B.C. The professional experience is reviewed by the AIBC and is subject to a qualifying interview and documentation requirements. Candidates for registration under sec. 37 also may be required to write some or all of the nine NCARB examinations that comprise the ARE.

A Comparison of Canada with Other Jurisdictions There are several core features of the architectural profession that are over and above a first professional degree that is equivalent to the Canadian Educational Standard. These core features are:

1. the scope of practice, i.e., what functions do architects commonly undertake in the practice of their profession,

2. knowledge of materials commonly used in construction,

3. knowledge of the design implications of climate and seismic conditions,

4. knowledge of the construction industry, including an understanding of the roles of general contractors, trade contractors and other professionals, and knowledge of the legal environment (building codes, environmental codes, planning and approval requirements, liability and lien, etc.)

5. regulation of professional practice, including requirements for internship and professional examinations, restriction of title, regulation of practice, continuing professional education requirements, and a professional code of ethics.

12 Architectural Institute of B.C., Bulletin 12 – Registering with Alternative Qualifications

(Revised August 2006), available at http://www.aibc.ca/bulletins/Bulletin12_1201.PDF



In many jurisdictions, when the practice of architecture is compared in terms of these core functions there are strong similarities with Canada. In other jurisdictions, however, there are notable differences. Scope of Practice: An important and complicating factor in assessing non-Canadian experience and qualifications is that the scope of practice, i.e., the range of professional activities that are commonly associated with architecture, differs across jurisdictions. The Professional Practice Commission of the International Union of Architects (IUA) undertook a comparative analysis of the scope of practice across various jurisdictions.13 The analysis found that while there is (as expected) significant overlap across most jurisdictions, there are also notable differences. In particular, the relationship between architecture and engineering differs across jurisdictions, as does the relationship to interior design work, urban and regional planning, and landscape architecture.

While the ‘design of buildings’ is common to architectural practice in all jurisdictions, in some jurisdictions, the IUA analysis found that the scope of practice does not include the ‘design of (civil) structures’ or the ‘design of installations’. As well, in some jurisdictions, architects are less involved in the management and administration of construction projects. In some jurisdictions, architects have a major presence in the design and construction of low-rise residential buildings. In Canada, this area of work is largely exempt from regulation and carried out, for the most part, by persons who are not registered (and often not trained) as architects. Materials: There are also important differences across jurisdictions in the types of materials used in construction. These differences are most evident in low-rise residential construction, but are also evident in other types of buildings. In North America, northern Europe and Japan, low-rise residential construction is predominantly wood-frame based. In most of the rest of the world, concrete and masonry are the predominant structural materials used. In North America, drywall is universally used for interior finish. In Asia, Latin America, and southern Europe, applied plaster is the norm. In North America, pre-fabricated components are the norm whereas in many other regions of the world, customization still prevails. In North America, cost-efficient design requires prior knowledge of standard sizes for building materials and components. Climate and Seismic Conditions Building science is a critical area of professional competence for an architect. Climate conditions can have a profound effect on design in a number of ways. In Canada, all buildings must be designed to take account of significant seasonal variations. Some regions are also high rainfall areas or other extreme meteorological conditions. Seismic conditions are relevant and regulated in some regions. As will be discussed later in this report, the survey of architectural practices identified deficiencies in knowledge of building science as it applies to Canadian conditions as a particular weakness of many IAGs. 13 Available at: http://www.coac.net/international/



Construction Industry and Legal Environment In Canada, architects play an important role in the administration and management of construction projects. A thorough knowledge of how the construction industry is structured is fundamental. This includes knowing the respective roles and functions of general contractors, the various trade contractors, materials suppliers, engineers, quantity surveyors, interior designers, landscape architects, inspectors, etc.

Knowledge of Building Codes, environmental requirements, planning procedures, and municipal approval requirements are also essential to the successful design and efficient implementation of a construction project. Equally important is an understanding of construction law, including the principles of liability and lien. All of these facets of the legal environment are jurisdictionally specific.

Regulation of Professional Practice A survey of 63 jurisdictions by the International Union of Architects shows notable differences in how the profession of architecture is regulated. Figure No. 14 summarizes several of these differences:

Figure No. 14 Differences in the Regulation of Architecture by Jurisdiction

(63 Responding Jurisdictions – Survey by International Union of Architects)

Canada Total Yes

Total No

Total Hybrid or

Conditional or Not Applicable

Compulsory Internship Yes 36 8 19 Professional Examination(s) Yes 31 31 1 Restricted Title Yes 52 9 2 Regulation of Practice Yes 53 10 0 Requirement for Continuing Professional Education Yes 13 30 20 Code of Ethics Yes 57 6 0

While there are numerous jurisdictions in which the scope of professional practice and the regulation of the profession are quite similar to Canada, there are also jurisdictions in which one or both of these aspects of the profession differ. For example, in some jurisdictions, registration is voluntary. In about half of the jurisdictions surveyed IUA, professional examinations are not required prior to admission to the profession. More than a third of jurisdictions do not require an internship. It cannot be presumed that simply because an individual practised as an architect prior to emigrating to Canada that he or she was admitted to the profession based on comparable competency standards or that he or she was engaged in the same range of professional activities as a Canadian architect. Such a determination can only be made after reviewing the system of regulation and the scope of professional practice in the jurisdiction.



Supply and Demand Trends

Employment opportunities in the architectural industry are determined largely by demand conditions and the rate of exit for retirement, career change and other reasons. Demand arises from architect-designed new construction in Canada (virtually all of the ICI sector and some of the residential sector), exported architectural services, consulting services, and asset management, etc. for major asset owners (principally in the public sector). New construction is a major source of demand. Figure No. 15 summarizes the outlook for increases in construction spending (net of inflation), as published by Reed Construction Data (CanaData).

Figure No. 15 Estimated Percentage Increases in Construction Spending (Net of Inflation)14

2007 2008 2009 2006 to 2009 Atlantic ICI 5.0% 3.8% 2.2% 11.4% Residential 2.0% 0.9% 0.1% 3.0% Total 3.0% 1.9% 0.9% 5.8% Quebec ICI 3.4% 4.1% 2.7% 10.7% Residential -6.5% -4.0% 2.0% -8.4% Total -3.7% -1.6% 2.2% -3.2% Ontario ICI 7.0% 5.5% 3.3% 16.5% Residential -3.5% -2.0% 1.5% -4.0% Total -0.1% 0.6% 2.1% 2.7% Manitoba ICI 4.5% 4.3% 3.6% 13.0% Residential 3.6% 2.0% 1.5% 7.2% Total 4.0% 3.0% 2.4% 9.7% Saskatchewan ICI 4.6% 5.3% 3.9% 14.4% Residential 3.4% 5.0% 1.5% 10.2% Total 3.9% 5.1% 2.4% 11.8% Alberta ICI 9.6% 6.7% 3.9% 21.5% Residential -1.5% -1.0% 0.5% -2.0% Total 2.1% 1.7% 1.7% 5.6% B.C. ICI 8.2% 6.3% 3.9% 19.5% Residential -2.0% -2.0% 0.5% -3.5% Total 0.9% 0.5% 1.6% 3.0%

14 Reed Construction Data, CanaData Annual Construction Forecast, 2007-2009 Edition



As can be seen from Figure No. 15, the projected increase in new construction spending (net of inflation) will vary considerably across regions. Over the three-years 2007-2009, project construction spending ranges from a decline of 3.2% in Quebec to an increase of 11.8% in Saskatchewan. Succeeding by Design estimated the exit rate from the profession at 2.0-3.0% per year.15 Overall, this suggests a three-year growth potential of approximately 1,300 architects, using the Census definition of an architect. On the basis of recent trends, this would imply a growth potential of around 300 registered architects and intern architects per year. This requirement is likely to increase over the next decade, as retirement rates increase and will increase further as the profession expands its scope of activity beyond new construction. As well, policy initiatives to expand the reach of the registration system would also increase the annual intake of registered architects and intern architects.

On the supply side, there are approximately 300 architectural graduates each year from accredited Canadian architectural programs. A number of these graduates are foreign students and do not seek employment in the Canadian architectural industry. Some graduates pursue academic careers. Others take architecturally-related employment, including urban planning positions, or are employed in asset management positions by governments and other public sector institutions. While precise estimates are not available, it is likely that at least one-third of Canadian graduates will pursue their careers outside Canada or outside the Canadian architectural industry.

Comparing demand and supply trends suggests that the prospective supply deficit is 100-200 persons annually. This is the number registered architects and intern architects that the profession will need to recruit each year from the ranks of IAGs and unregistered domestic graduates. This deficit will increase as retirement rates increase.16 In some regions, the supply deficit is not acute. In other regions, such as Alberta, the supply deficit is serious and will grow more serious. Figure No. 16 summarizes regional data on population (in millions) per registered architect. Figure No. 17 shows differences in regional spending on new construction per architect.

15 These estimates are based on: (1) estimates of sectoral share of architectural fees developed

by the McGill Business Consulting Group in their study Succeeding by Design, (2) projected real changes in construction spending per the CanaData Annual Construction Forecast, 2007 – 2009, and (3) estimates of exits from the profession also developed by the McGill Business Consulting Group.

16 This conclusion is broadly consistent with the analysis in Succeeding by Design, McGill

Business Consulting Group, prepared for the Ontario Association of Architects and the Architects Association of New Brunswick, the Manitoba Association of Architects and the Nova Scotia Association of Architects and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, November 2003. The conclusion is also consistent with the estimates from the Canadian Occupational Projects System (COPS) maintained by HRSDC and disseminated through the Job Futures web site: http://jobfutures.ca/noc/215.shtml



Figure No. 16 Population (Millions) per Registered Architect

(based on Administrative Data from Regulators and Statistics Canada)

2.3

7.7

12.7

2.2

3.4

4.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Atlantic

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba-Saskatchewan

Alberta

B.C

Population (Millions) per Registered Architect

Figure No. 17 Construction Spending (Residential + ICI)

per Registered Architect, 200617

$9.2

$6.4

$12.3

$8.5

$17.2

$9.2

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00

Atlantic

Quebec

Ontario

Manitoba-Saskatchewan

Alberta

B.C

Construction Spending (ICI + Residential) in $Millions per Registered Architect, 2006

As can be seen from Figure Nos. 16 and 17, there is considerable variation across regions in the ratio of architects to population and construction spending per architect. It is important to note that the regional pattern of demand, as evidenced by Figure Nos. 16 and 17, diverges from immigration settlement patterns. In particular, recent immigrants tend to settle disproportionately in Ontario. To some degree this may reflect cultural factors. Inadequate labour market information may also be a factor.

17Construction spending estimates based on CanaData Annual Construction Forecast, 2007 –

2009



Several factors could reduce the prospective supply deficit. First, in some regions there may be under-employment. Second, architectural practices may be able to meet demand by utilizing more non-registered graduates (both domestic graduates and IAGs) or more college-trained architectural technologists. Third, some of the work commonly undertaken by architects, but not statutorily restricted to registered architects – such as project management – may be undertaken by persons in other professions or occupations. And fourth, a decline in the amount of export work (as a result of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar) might also reduce demand.

Conversely, there are other factors that would increase the supply deficit. The proportion of architectural graduates who pursue careers outside the architectural industry could increase. To some degree, this may be a natural consequence of raising educational standards, since higher educational standards implicitly provide a broader base for career choice. Also, export work could increase, perhaps as a result of an increase in marketing and bidding activity on the part of Canadian firms. The increased number of IAGs in the Canadian architectural work force clearly assists Canadian firms in obtaining a greater number of foreign commissions, especially where foreign language skills are needed.

On balance, however, the conclusion that emerges is the current rate of admission of IAGs into the profession is below what is required to meet the profession’s long-run needs.

P

Addressing the challenges faced by IAGs requires both an understanding of the system of professional regulation and an appreciation of the complexity of the architectural industry and the architectural labour market. As will be described in the Chapter Four, many of the challenges that IAGs encounter are rooted in a regulatory system. However, other significant challenges that IAGs encounter find their basis in the labour market itself.

The next chapter examines recent changes in immigration policy and their impact on the Canadian labour market and on regulated professions, including architecture.



3. Recent Trends in Immigration

This chapter discusses recent trends in immigration with particular emphasis on the impact of the 1985 re-orientation of policy. As noted in Chapter One, this re-orientation, and the related changes introduced in the mid-1990s and thereafter, are continuing to have a significant impact on the labour market, especially the labour market for university-educated professionals. These new labour market realities constitute the essential context to understanding the challenges facing the architectural profession.

Recent Immigration Policy and Trends18

Individuals can immigrate to Canada under four broad categories: economic migrants, family class, refugees, and a minor ‘other’ category. In recent years, ‘economic migrants’ have dominated the immigration inflow. Among ‘economic migrants’, ‘skilled workers’ – predominantly university educated professionals - are by far the largest group. Prior to 1985, this was not the case.

From the 1920s to the early 1960s, the goal of immigration policy was to support population growth and to ensure an adequate supply initially of agricultural labour and later, of industrial labour. Throughout this period, admission based on country of origin formed the core of immigration policy. A list of preferred and non-preferred countries of origin was maintained and amended over this period. In 1962, family reunification and ‘sponsorship’ became the dominant themes of immigration policy. The system left wide discretion to immigration officers. The potential arbitrariness of the new policy was reduced by the introduction of the ‘point system’ in 1967. The ‘point system’ has remained central to Canada’s immigration policy to this day, though there have been significant changes in the weight accorded to different factors. Concurrent with the introduction of the ‘point system’ was abandonment 18 This discussion is based on:

• Alan G. Green and David A. Green, The Economic Goals of Canada’s Immigration Policy, Past an Present, (July 1996) unpub., Dept. of Economics, U.B.C., Discussion Paper No. 96-18

• Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green, and Christopher Worswick, The Impacts of the Point System and Immigrant Class on Skill Characteristics of Immigrant Inflows (2005), unpub, Conference on Immigration, Chicago – September 2005

• Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Immigrant Occupations: Recent Trends and Issues http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/research/papers/occupations/occupations-c.html

• Library of Parliament, Canada’s Immigration Program (October 2004) http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp190-e.htm



of the list of preferred countries of origin. From 1967 until the early 1980’s, applicants required 50 points on a 100-point scale. By 1978, up to 35 points could be achieved by education, experience and specific vocational preparation. A further 15 points was dependent on occupational demand. Broadly, these criteria accommodated and were intended to accommodate a large influx of skilled and semi-skilled blue collar workers.

In May of 1982, owing to the severity of the recession, an approved employment offer became mandatory. This requirement remained in force until the end of 1985. By 1985, the immigration inflow had fallen to 83,402 persons (down from 128,693 in 1981 and 143,135 in 1980). In 1985, the government announced a major re-orientation of immigration policy. First, the requirement for an offer of employment was abolished. Second, the number of points required for admission was increased, thereby implicitly increasing the importance of education, experience and labour market balance. And third, immigration intake goals were raised to 200,000 and subsequently (in 1993) to 250,000. A list of designated occupations was developed in 1991.

As a result of the 1985 changes, immigration intake increased dramatically, as is shown in Figure No. 18.

Figure No. 18 Immigration Landings, 1980 – 2005

(Citizenship and Immigration Canada)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Mandatory Employment

Offer

1985 Policy Re-orientation

Beginning in 1995, changes to the ‘point system’ (formally known as the ‘skilled worker grid’) effectively increased the weight given to post-secondary training, professional experience, French and English language ability, and characteristics associated with labour market adaptability. The greater emphasis on skills, experience and adaptability replaced a previous emphasis on assessments of occupational demand or labour market balance. Appendix A to this chapter reproduces in abbreviated form the current six-factor selection criteria. It should be noted that the ‘pass mark’ is subject to Ministerial discretion. In 2003, the ‘pass mark’ was reduced from 75 to 67.



The changes to the ‘point system’ from 1995 onwards occasioned a marked shift in the composition of persons emigrating to Canada. Figure No. 19 shows that since 1994, the proportion of persons admitted as ‘skilled workers’ has increased from approximately 30% to around 50% of all individuals granted permanent resident status. In absolute terms, the number of ‘skilled worker’ immigrants has approximately doubled since 1994 – growing from 68,505 to an average of 116,300 persons between 2003 and 2005.

Figure No. 19 Proportion of Permanent Residents

admitted to Canada under ‘Skilled Worker’ Class, 1994 – 2005 (CIC Administrative Data)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Within the ‘skilled worker’ class two further trends have been evident. The first is an increase in the level of skill of persons granted permanent resident status. In 1994, 39% of principal applicants in the economic migrant class had a university degree. By 2005, this proportion had increased to 79%. The second trend is an increase in the number of ‘skilled workers’ intending to work in occupations that are regulated. In the early 1990s approximately 17% of persons admitted as ‘skilled workers’ were trained for occupations that are regulated. By 2000, this proportion had increased to approximately 43%.19

Based on these trends, one would have expected that the earnings of post-1985 immigrants to compare favourably to earlier generations of immigrants. The evidence, however, indicates that this is not the case. Studies have found that in the past 10-20 years, the earnings of recent immigrants (i.e., those in Canada for five years or fewer), have deteriorated relative to historical patterns. Other studies have found a significantly higher incidence of low-income circumstances among post-1980 immigrants compared with previous generations of immigrants.20 One of the major factors cited as an explanation

19 Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Immigrant Occupations: Recent Trends” (September 2003) www.cic.gc.ca/english/research/papers/occupations/occupations-toc.html 20See:



for this otherwise puzzling trend is the difficulty encountered by recent immigrants in having their foreign qualifications and experience recognized in Canada. This problem is thought to be most marked among recent immigrants whose foreign training and experience is for occupations that are regulated in Canada. One study estimated that the loss to the Canadian economy from undervaluing the skills and experience of immigrants is in excess of $15 billion annually.21

Internationally Educated Architectural Graduates

The trends which are evident for professional occupations as a whole are apparent, as well, in architecture. Figure No. 20 shows the number of persons granted permanent resident status who identified ‘architect’ as their intended occupation. Although there is a dip in1997, the same post-1995 growth that is evident in other professions is also observable in the data for architects. Annual intake in the last three years (2003-2005) was 348 persons, compared to an average of 189 in the five years prior to 1995.

Figure No. 20 No. of Persons Granted Permanent Resident Status

who identified Architecture as their Intended Occupation (CIC Administrative Data)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Ann

ual A

rriv

als

• Frenette, Marc and Rene Morissette, Will they ever converge? Earnings of immigrant and

Canadian-born workers over the last two decades, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch, Paper No. 215, Cat. No. 11F0019MIE2003215 (2003)

• Zhang, Xuelin, The wealth position of immigrant families in Canada, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch, Paper No. 197, Cat. No.11F0019MIE2003197 (2003)

• Chui, T. and D. Zietsma, “Earnings of Immigrants in the 1990s,” Canadian Social Trends, (2003 – Autumn) Statistics Canada, Cat. no. 11-008

• Worswick, Christopher, Immigrants’ Declining Earnings, C.D. Howe Institute, Backgrounder No. 81 (April 2004)

21 Jeffrey Reitz, “Immigrant Skill Utilization in the Canadian Labour Market: Implications of

Human Capital Research,” Journal of International Migration and Integration, March 2002.



Administrative data must be treated with caution before drawing inferences. Some of the individuals who stated ‘architect’ as their intended occupation may not have a first professional degree that is commensurate with the Canadian Education Standard. Others may not have been practising as architects in their country of origin. However, the ‘point system’ is strongly biased towards persons who are qualified in their country of origin and have experience. Consistent with this, in our IAG Survey, 85% of respondents reported that they had worked as an architect prior to emigrating to Canada and 70% reported that they were licensed in their country of origin. It is reasonable to assume that by far the preponderance of IAGs were trained as architects in their country of origin and had some professional experience in architecture prior to emigrating.

Although an individual identifies an intended occupation in their immigration application, they may not ultimately pursue that occupation upon arriving in Canada. In some cases, language skills must be acquired. In other cases, individuals may elect to pursue employment in other fields, such as construction management or urban planning or in areas that are entirely unrelated to architecture. Some may work in architectural fields that are exempt from regulation. Census data suggest that in 2001, only about one quarter of IAGs worked in the architectural labour force, meaning they performed the functions of architects, whether registered or not. This implies that a large fraction of IAGs are either unable to find work in the architectural industry, or they pursue careers outside the architectural industry or they work in the architectural industry at a level that is below their professional training, e.g., as draftspersons or interior designers.

Figure No. 21 shows the regional settlement distribution of persons granted permanent resident status who identified architecture as their intended occupation. Figure No. 21 also compares this settlement distribution to the distribution of registered architects. The distribution of registered architects is somewhat indicative of employment opportunities in the architectural field. Generic indicators of regional differences in demand were also noted in Chapter Two (see Figure Nos. 16 and 17 – page 36).

Figure No. 21 Settlement Distribution of IAGs compared with Regional Distribution of Registered Architects

(CIC Administrative Data)

1%

20%

55%

7%

17%

0%5%

35% 34%

10%15%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Atlanticprovinces

Quebec Ontario PrairieProvinces

BritishColumbia

Territories

IAGs Registered Architects



As can be seen from Figure 21, significantly more IAGs settle initially in Ontario compared to Ontario’s share of registered architects in Canada. As will be discussed in Chapter Five, the asymmetry between settlement patterns and employment opportunities exacerbates the integration challenges faced by IAGs.

Over the three year period 2003-2005, 1,045 persons were granted permanent resident status who stated that architecture is their intended occupation. In the same period, the CACB received applications for certification from 297 IAGs. A strict correspondence in time periods cannot be made. Some individuals apply for CACB certification prior to emigrating to Canada, and in recent years have often been encouraged or required to do so. Others may be in Canada for a few years before formally submitting their application. Nevertheless, there is a wide gap between the number of persons arriving in Canada with architectural qualifications and the number of IAGs who apply for CACB certification. During the same three years, only 104 IAGs were granted certification. (Again, there is no necessary correspondence in the time periods.)

There are two gaps that should concern the profession. The first is the magnitude of the gap between the number of IAGs arriving in Canada and the number IAGs applying for CACB certification (1,045 vs. 297). The second is the gap between the number of applications submitted and the number of certifications granted, including provisional certifications (297 vs. 104).

In any examination of integration into professional labour markets, the issue of language competence always arises. Broadly the issue is that the language competence requirements for being admitted as an immigrant to Canada are lower than the competence required to function at the professional level. For English, one of the most commonly relied on tests is the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Most universities rely on TOEFL scores for admission of foreign students or students whose language competence needs to be verified. However, studies of TOEFL scores often reveal that these tests are inefficient predictors of language competence, especially at advanced levels of usage.22 As will be noted in the next chapter, IAGs and employers differ significantly on their perceptions of language competence.

P

22 For example, Loyola University at the University of Chicago states in its information to

foreign students that “it (TOEFL) is a minimally reliable indicator of general language level. A TOEFL score of 550/213/79-80 is a minimally reliable indicator of a student's ability to begin an undergraduate or some graduate programs. The first of the three scores above is for the PBT, the paper-based test which measures listening, grammar/structure, and reading; the second is for the CBT, the computer-based test which measures listening, grammar/structure, reading, and writing; and the third is for the iBT, the Internet based test which will be assessing productive skills as well as the others. The TOEFL is weakest at assessing "productive" ability (speaking & writing), although the new Internet-based TOEFL (the iBT), which began to be administered in Fall 2005, is addressing these deficiencies.” [emphasis in original] http://www.luc.edu/esl/toefl_faqs.html



Appendix A Immigration to Canada – Selection Criteria - Six Factors (Abbreviated)

(Citizenship and Immigration Canada)

Factor One: Education Maximum 25

Master’s Degree or Ph.D. and at least 17 years of full-time or full-time equivalent study. 25 Two or more university degrees at the bachelor’s level and at least 15 years of full-time study. 22 Three-year diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship and at least 15 years of full-time study. 22 University degree of two years or more at the bachelor’s level and at least 14 years of full-time study. 20 Two-year diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship and at least 14 years of full-time study. 20 One-year university degree at the bachelor’s level and at least 13 years of full-time or full-time equivalent study. 15

One-year diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship and at least 13 years of full-time or full-time equivalent study. 15 One-year diploma, trade certificate or apprenticeship and at least 12 years of full-time or full-time equivalent study. 12 High school. 5 Factor Two: Official Languages (Four abilities: speaking, listing, reading writing) Maximum

24 1st Official Language High proficiency (per ability) 4 Moderate proficiency (per ability) 2 Basic proficiency (per ability) 1 to 2 No proficiency 0 Possible maximum (all 4 abilities) 16 2nd Official Language High proficiency (per ability) 2 Moderate proficiency (per ability) 2 Basic proficiency (per ability) 1 to 2 No proficiency 0 Possible maximum (all 4 abilities) 8 Factor Three: Experience Maximum

21 1 year 15 2 years 17 3 years 19 4 years 21



Factor Four: Age Maximum 10

21 to 49 years at time of application 10 Less 2 points for each year over 49 or under 21 Factor Five: Arranged Employment In Canada Maximum

10 A permanent job offer that has received a positive labour market opinion from HRSDC. 10 Temporary work permit 10 Factor Six: Adaptability Maximum

10 Spouse’s or common-law partner’s education 3-5 Minimum one year full-time authorized work in Canada 5 Minimum two years full-time authorized post-secondary study in Canada 5 Have received points under the Arranged Employment in Canada factor 5 Family relationship in Canada 5 Total Maximum

100 Pass Mark (as at January 2007) 67



4. A Profile of IAGs This chapter summarizes data on IAGs drawn from the IAG Survey, the Survey of Architectural Practices, and the Survey of Public Sector Employers. Response rates and the regional distribution of responses were discussed in Chapter One. The survey results are augmented by input from the focus groups and from the interviews with regulators, employers and settlement and advocacy organizations.

Demographic Characteristics

Two thirds of respondents to the IAG Survey were male. In 2006, the average age of the respondents was 41.7. The average age at which respondents obtained their permanent residence status in Canada was 34.2, implying that the average respondent has been Canada for 7.5 years. Figure No. 22 shows the age distribution of survey respondents in 2006 and when they obtained permanent residence status.

Figure No. 22 Age Distribution of IAG Survey Respondents in 2006

and when They Received Permanent Residence Status in Canada (IAG Survey)

2%

30%37%

22%

10%7%

54%

32%

7%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56+

Age in 2006 Age when PR Received

Over 40 languages were identified as by respondents as their ‘first language’. Only 9.6% identified English as their ‘first language’, while 3.9% reported French as their ‘first language.’ However, 44.4% of respondents reported that some or all of their university studies had been in English, while 7.9% reported that some or all of their university studies had been in French. In other words, more than half of IAG respondents reported university-level competence in English or French.

Approximately 60% of survey respondents reported that they supported dependent family members.



Experience in Architecture Prior to Immigration to Canada

Overall, 88% of survey respondents reported that they had worked as an architect prior to emigrating to Canada; 70% of respondents reported that they were licensed as a professional architect outside Canada. (As noted in Chapter Two, there are important differences across countries in how the practice of architecture is regulated. Some jurisdictions do not require licensure. Other jurisdictions require a license, but may not require an internship or additional examinations as a condition of licensure.)

It is useful to distinguish between IAGs with seven or fewer years of professional experience prior to immigrating to Canada and IAGs with eight or more years of professional experience. The latter might more accurately be described as International Architectural Professionals (IAPs). Our survey data indicate that approximately 52% of IAGs fall into the IAP category.

On average, those individuals who were licensed outside of Canada reported that they had been licensed for 8.7 years prior to emigrating to Canada. A significant minority (24%) were licensed for 11 years or more.

At present the regulatory system in Canada views all IAGs in the same light for purposes of evaluating their educational qualifications, regardless of whether they were licensed in their country of origin and regardless of their prior professional experience. There is some flexibility in assessing prior professional experience obtained outside Canada for meeting Canadian internship requirements. Those IAGs whom we have described as ‘International Architectural Professionals’ are understandably frustrated by registration requirements that they interpret as obliging them to start their career over, as if they had no prior professional experience. This frustration is especially marked among those ‘International Architectural Professionals’ who qualified and worked in jurisdictions that regulate architectural training and practice in a manner commensurate or approximately commensurate with Canadian standards.

Employment in Canada

On average, respondents to our IAG Survey have had permanent residence status for 7.4 years. Over 80% immigrated to Canada under the post 1995 policies which gave increased weight to education and experience. At the time of our survey (autumn 2006), 9.5% of respondents indicated that they were unemployed. While this seems high, we do not have comparative data for internationally trained professionals in other occupations.

For IAGs seeking to be registered in Canada, employment as an intern is always, or almost always, required. As can seen from Figure No. 23, 44% of IAGs reported that they found obtaining employment as an intern to be either ‘very challenging’ or ‘impossible’. Significantly, there was no appreciable difference between IAGs who had studied at the university level in English or French and those who had not.



Figure No. 23 Proportion of IAGs who reported Varying Degrees of Difficulty

in being Hired into an Architectural Internship (IAG Survey)

34%

22%

34%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Not Challengingor Not Applicable

SomewhatChallenging

Very Challenging Impossible

Approximately 28% of survey respondents reported that they are not currently employed by an architectural practice. Roughly half of these worked at some point for an architectural practice in Canada, but are not at present employed by a practice. The employment challenges faced by IAGs reflect the asymmetry between settlement patterns and the regional distribution of demand. Quite simply, far too many IAGs settle in the GTA. Their numbers exceed the absorptive capacity of the regional architectural labour market. By contrast, too few IAGs are settling in Alberta where the demand for architectural services appears to exceed available supply.

The propensity of architectural practices to hire IAGs is directly related to the size of the practice. Figure No. 24 illustrates this pattern.

Figure No. 24 Proportion of Architectural Practices (by Size) that Employ IAGs

(Employment equals Sum of Registered and Non-Registered Graduates, incl. Interns) (Architectural Practices Survey)

40%

64%

85% 83%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 51+



At present, a relatively small number of practices accounts for the lion’s share of IAG employment. In our survey of architectural practices, 8% of firms (all large) accounted for 50% of IAG employment. This pattern is broadly the same for overall architectural employment. In our survey 12% of practices accounted for 50% of overall architectural employment. This concentration of IAG employment potentially facilitates the development of a strategy to provide support to IAGs. On the other hand, if the number of internships is to be increased (for both IAGs and domestic graduates), the profession will need to devise strategies to encourage smaller practices to establish more internships.

Among the 72% of respondents who are currently working in an architectural practice, a significant proportion are employed as neither registered architects nor as interns. Figure No. 25 illustrates the employment pattern of survey respondents. Overall, 58% of IAGs in our survey are currently employed outside the system of professional regulation and are therefore not on the path to admission to the profession. (As noted in Chapter Two, Census data for 2001 suggest that the proportion of IAGs who are outside the system of professional regulation is higher, perhaps as high as three-quarters). On its face, this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and explains the frustration expressed by many IAGs and representatives of settlement and advocacy groups. The employment pattern is also a consequence of the imbalance between the demand for internships and the supply of these positions.

Figure No. 25 Employment Pattern of IAGs in Canada

(IAG Survey)

28% 30% 27%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Not working foran architectural

practice

Not working as anintern or

registeredarchitect

Intern RegisteredArchitect

58% outside system of professional regulation

Among those IAGs employed outside of the architectural industry (28%), three-quarters indicated that they are in occupations that utilize their professional training as architects.

Half of the IAG Survey respondents reported that they found their first job in an architectural practice within 5 months. However, for a quarter of IAGs, job search time exceeded 12 months. It is noteworthy that English or French language facility (using language of university studies as a proxy)



does not explain this difference in job search time. IAGs with fluency in English or French were as likely to experience a protracted job search as individuals with weaker language skills. Based on focus group discussions and interviews, the major factor affecting job search (aside from luck) appears to be participation in informal networks and knowledge of how the architectural and construction industry works in Canada.

Figure No. 26 shows the functions which IAGs report that they are currently performing in architectural practices.

Figure No. 26 Functions Performed by IAGs who are Employed in Architectural Practices

(IAG Survey)

15%

17%

25%

26%

40%

47%

50%

61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Marketing

Other Administration

Manageral

Contract Administration

Contract Documentation

CAD/Technician

Design

As can be seen from Figure No. 26, 61% of IAGs report that they are doing design work. Two-thirds of these IAGs are either registered architects or interns. A frequent complaint of IAGs is that they are able to find work only as CAD technicians. Our survey data confirm a high incidence of CAD work (50%). However, only 6% of respondents reported doing solely CAD work. While a minority of IAGs appear to be doing only CAD work, the view that a large proportion of IAGs are locked into low-level CAD jobs is not supported by our survey data. On average, IAGs employed in architectural practices carry out 2.8 of the eight functions tracked by the IAG Survey. Figure No. 27 shows that half of IAGs in architectural practices are performing 4 or more different functions.



Figure No. 27 No. of Functions Performed by IAGs

who are employed in Architectural Practices (IAG Survey)

13%

17%

21%

16%

12% 12%

7%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Functions performed by IAGs in Architectural Practices

Sources of Guidance for Employment

As can be seen in Figure No. 28, approximately one third (31%) of IAGs reported that they found it ‘very challenging’ or ‘impossible’ to get advice from someone who knows the architectural profession and the architectural industry. It should be noted, however, that more than two-thirds of these individuals were not employed in an architectural practice.


in Getting Advice from Someone Who Knows the Architectural Profession and the Architectural Industry

(IAG Survey)

34% 34%

25%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Not Challengingor Not Relevant

SomewhatChallenging




Overall 42% of survey respondents reported that they received no guidance in seeking employment in architecture. Those IAGs who received guidance drew on various sources. Of these, as Figure No. 29 shows, friends or relatives were the most common source of guidance.

Figure No. 29 Proportion of IAGs who reported Obtaining Guidance

from Various Sources in Seeking Employment in Architecture (IAG Survey)

10%

9%

17%

3%

5%

26%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Canada Employment Centre

Provincial Association

Settlement Organization

Ethnic Community

University or College

Friends or Relatives

Other

Language Ability

IAGs generally rank their English language skills as ‘good’, with the exception of professional written communication skills, which two-thirds of IAGs rated as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Figure No. 30 shows that only a small minority of IAGs (5-7%) regarded their English language skills as seriously deficient.

Figure No. 30 Percentage of IAGs reporting their English Language Skills as Poor or Very Poor

(IAG Survey)

7%

7%

5%

7%

66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Everyday oral communication

Professional communication withclients, etc

Professional presentation skills

Everyday written comunication

Professional written communication



Employers with experience in employing IAGs, however, generally rank challenges relating to language skill significantly higher than do the IAGs themselves. Figure No. 31 shows that one-third of architectural employers with experience in employing IAGs consider written communication skills and professional communication (with clients, contractors, government officials) a challenge in employing IAGs. Half this proportion find challenges with everyday oral communication.

Figure No. 31

Percentage of Architectural Practices reporting Various Language Skills as a Challenge in Employing IAGs

(Architectural Practices Survey)

17%

33%

33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Everyday oralcommunication

Professionalcommunicationwith clients, etc

Writtencommunication

Clearly there is a significant difference between the fluency which IAGs perceive and the fluency that employers perceive.

Similar results are evident in Quebec with respect to French language fluency. More than 90% of IAGs regard their French language skills as ‘average’ or better, with the exception of written skills which are viewed as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Very few architectural practices in Quebec (4%) have difficulties with IAGs everyday oral communication skills. However, 30% report that IAGs’ professional communication with clients, etc. is a challenge for their company. Approximately one-quarter of practices report that written communication is a challenge.

Half of the responding IAGs who reside in Quebec have completed the official French language test administered by the Office québécois de la langue française.



Career Aspirations

Over 90% of IAGs who are not now registered as professional architects expressed an intention to qualify for professional registration. This indicates a high degree of motivation which could serve the Canadian profession well. Based on our IAG Survey, the proportion of IAGs who intend to qualify for professional registration is likely higher than the proportion of domestic graduates. This ambition is also reflected in a high desire (90%+) on the part of IAGs to expand the role they play in architectural practices. More than 70% of IAGs expressed a long-term aspiration to operate their own practices or become partners in a practice.

While most IAGs know of other IAGs who have become licensed architects in Canada, a surprisingly high proportion (44%) reported that they did not know any IAGs who had successfully completed the registration process. In large firms, IAGs are likely to meet other IAGs who have become registered. However, those employed in smaller firms are much less likely to meet other IAGs who have completed the process of professional qualification. Supportive examples can be important motivators, especially when the requirements seem particularly challenging. It may be feasible in larger cities for provincial and territorial associations and institutes to sponsor support groups for IAGs.

Knowledge of Registration Procedures

Approximately 85% of the respondents to the IAG Survey reported that they know how to become a registered architect in Canada. Similar proportions reported that they were familiar with their provincial association, institute or ordre and that they were aware that CACB certification is the first step towards professional qualification. While this proportion is high, it is both puzzling and troubling that 15% of IAGs are unaware of the procedures for professional registration in Canada.

It is also notable that only 43% of survey respondents reported that they had obtained information on professional registration in Canada prior to emigrating. This is clearly a serious problem, since many of the documents required for registration in Canada are more readily obtained before emigrating.

Getting Information on How to become Registered

Figure No. 32 shows that only a small minority (2%) of IAGs found it ‘impossible’ to get information on how to become registered in Canada. However, around one respondent in five (21%) reported that getting this information was ‘very challenging’. The largest proportion (74%) reported that getting information on registration procedures was either ‘not challenging’ or only ‘somewhat challenging’.




in Obtaining Information on How to become a Registered Architect in Canada (IAG Survey)

37%40%

22%

2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Not Challenging SomewhatChallenging


Virtually all participants in the IAG Survey reported that they had consulted the web site of a provincial association, the CACB, the RAIC, a university school of architecture, or another web site. Figure No. 33 shows the contact rate for various web sites. Only 8% of survey respondents reported not visiting any of these web sites. Roughly half of the respondents visited two or more sites.

Figure No. 33 Proportion of IAGs who contacted Web Sites

for Information on How to become a Registered Architect in Canada (IAG Survey)

14%

27%

45%

59% 60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Other University RAIC ProvincialAssociation

CACB

Figure No. 34 shows that there was relatively little difference in how IAGs evaluated the sites of the RAIC, the Provincial Associations and the CACB. Approximately 56-57% judged the sites to be



‘adequate’, while 15-20% found the sites to be ‘thorough and complete’. Around 23-29% of respondents described the sites as ‘insufficient’. 23

Figure No. 34

IAGs’ Evaluation of Web Sites as Information Sources (IAG Survey)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Insufficient Adequate Thorough andComplete

RAICProvincial AssociationCACB

We do not have any benchmarks against which to compare the results from our IAG Survey. The most important finding from the survey is that the web is an important source of information for IAGs. The second finding is that while the RAIC, CACB and provincial associations have generally done a good job in disseminating information through their web sites, there is room for improvement.

The IAG also tracked other information sources that IAGs might use. Approximately two-thirds of IAGs reported consulting a no-web source to obtain information on becoming registered in Canada. Figure No. 35 summarizes the incidence of using various non-web sources.

23 We cannot be certain as to which provincial association web site a survey respondent visited.

However, we can use current province of residence as a proxy. Sufficient returns were generated in only some provinces. The following table summarizes results at the provincial level for provinces in which there are sufficient returns:

Insufficient Adequate Thorough &

Complete No. of

Responses B.C. 29% 56% 15% 80 Alberta 38% 44% 19% 32 Ontario 16% 66% 18% 99 Quebec 36% 55% 9% 44



Figure No. 35 Proportion of IAGs who contacted Various Non-Web Sources

for Information on How to become a Registered Architect in Canada (IAG Survey)

51%

19%

35%

24%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employer ProvincialAssociation

Settlement orCommunityAssociation

Friend orRelative

ImmigrationAdvisor

The survey responses indicated in Figure No. 35 are somewhat puzzling. One would have expected substantially higher reliance on employers and provincial associations. In the case of employers, it may be that many employers do not have current information on registration requirements and therefore refer IAGs to the provincial association or the CACB web sites. In the case of provincial associations, it is likely that a large proportion of inquiries are being directed to the web site. Figure No. 35 also suggests that settlement and community organizations are playing an important role in assisting many IAGs, though, in some instances, these organizations may not be equipped to provide complete or accurate information.

Figure No. 36 summarizes how IAGs evaluated employers, provincial associations, and settlement and community associations as sources of information.



Figure No. 36 IAGs’ Evaluation of Employers, Provincial Associations

and Settlement or Community Associations as Information Sources (IAG Survey)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Insufficient Adequate Thorough andComplete

Employers

Provincial Associations

Settlement or CommunityAssociations

Our focus groups and interviews indicate that in contacting an employer, provincial association or settlement association, an IAG is seeking personal assistance, as opposed to electronically disseminated information. Providing such personal assistance can be costly and difficult, especially for smaller provincial associations. Characterizing the information provided by provincial associations as ‘insufficient’ appears to reflect disappointment with the lack of personal assistance. Some IAGs complained in focus groups of being ‘unable to get past the receptionist’. As will be evident in the discussion below, many IAGs identified a lack of guidance or advice as an important and isolating challenge. A number of provincial associations have acknowledged this problem and are seeking ways of addressing it.

It is noteworthy that around half of IAGs consulted their employer on how to become registered and that 70% of those who consulted their employer judged the information they received to be either ‘adequate’ or ‘thorough and complete’. This suggests that employers are an important channel of information and that they should be provided with additional information resources to assist IAGs who are their employees.

Employers’ Views: Challenges in Employing IAGs

As noted in Chapter One, 49% of employers that participated in the Architectural Practices Survey reported that they currently employed IAGs. Of these employers, 28% identified no particular challenges or issues. Only a small minority (8%) noted challenges with design abilities or knowledge of CAD and other software (4% and 7% respectively). Figure No. 37 shows that approximately one-third of employers pointed to challenges pertaining to professional level communications and written communications. A similar proportion noted challenges related to ‘the full range of activities involved in a typical architectural design project as it moves from inception to completion of construction.’



Since design capability is generally not a challenge, we can infer that it is post-design aspects of practice that are at issue – contact administration, construction management, etc. More widespread were challenges relating to knowledge of the legal context of professional practice and knowledge of Canadian technical standards and building codes.

Figure No. 37 Percentage of Architectural Practices that Employ IAGs

Identifying Specific Challenges (Architectural Practice Survey)

4%

7%

8%

17%

33%

33%

34%

36%

40%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

CAD

Other business software

Design ability

Everyday oral communications

Professional-level oral communications

Written communications

Knowledge of full range of activities ofan architectural project

Knowledge of building technology andengineering

Knowlede of legal context

Knowledge of Canadian technicalstandards and Codes

Roughly a third of public sector employers (36%) also pointed to professional-level oral communi-cations as a challenge in employing IAGs. All other issues ranked much lower among public sector employers. This may reflect that these areas of professional practice are less relevant outside the architectural industry. Alternatively, the selection process of public sector employers may screen out IAGs whose skills are deficient in those areas.



Employers’ Views: Advantages of Employing IAGs

Approximately 21% of architectural practices that are currently employing IAGs reported no particular advantages to employing IAGs. Among those firms that identified advantages, a ‘high level of motivation’ and ‘previous design experience’ stand out as particular advantages. These data are summarized in Figure No. 38.

Figure No. 39 Percentage of Architectural Practices that Employ IAGs

Identifying Specific Advantages (Architectural Practices Survey)

15%

20%

21%

24%

37%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Previous project managementexperience

Technical proficiency

Knowledge of business practicesoutside Canada

Fluency in languages other than Englishor French

Previous design experience

High level of motivation

Among public sector employers, the pattern of response was somewhat different. ‘Previous design experience’ was the only particular advantage identified by a significant proportion (32%) of public sector employers.

Policies of Architectural Practices and Public Sector Employers

Aside from operational requirements to have a sufficient complement of registered architects to ‘stamp’ designs, most firms encourage, but do not require registration. Figure No. 40 shows that only 9% of surveyed firms have a policy of requiring registration. Almost all of these are firms with 5 or fewer architectural staff. Public sector employers, with few exceptions, do not require registration, though around half of public sector employers surveyed encourage registration.



Figure No. 39 Policies of Architectural Practices towards Registration


Require registration, 9%

Encourage registration,

76%

Some must register, but not

all, 15%

Overall, 59% of firms subsidize annual dues payable for registration and 39% subsidize annual RAIC dues. Figure No. 40 shows that the likelihood of a firm subsidizing provincial association dues is directly related to firm size. This relationship is not as strong with subsidization of RAIC dues. Approximately half of surveyed public sector employers subsidize provincial association dues. Subsidization of RAIC annual dues by public sector employers is less common (approximately 20%).

Figure No. 40 Policies of Architectural Practices towards

Subsidization of Provincial Association and RAIC Annual Dues (Architectural Practices Survey)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 51+

Subsidize Dues forProvincial AssociationSusidize RAICMembership Dues

Some architectural practices provide support for the expenses incurred by interns. Figure No. 41 shows that 38% of architectural practices subsidize examination fees. this proportion rises to 75%



among firms with more than 50 architectural employees. Approximately one third of practices subsidize tuition costs. A smaller proportion (22%) subsidize CACB certification fees.

Figure No. 41 Policies of Architectural Practices towards Support for Interns’ Costs


38%

22%

32%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Subsidize ExaminationFees

Subsidize CACBCertification Fees

Subsidize Tuition

Other forms of support include paid time-off to prepare for examinations (25%) and designating mentors (19%). Only a small proportion of firms (5%) that employ IAGs subsidize the translation of documents that are required for CACB certification or professional registration. Some firms indicate that they subsidize participation in the RIAC Syllabus Program. Larger firms conduct in-house seminars for their staff. Among public sector employers, approximately half support examination fees, while a third support tuition fees.

Barriers and Challenges perceived by IAGs The IAG Survey asked respondents to identify the factors that they regard as challenges to becoming registered in Canada. These factors can be classed into four groups:



Figure No. 42 Barriers and Challenges as Perceived by IAGs

Regulatory Factors:

• Getting formal recognition for professional experience outside Canada

• Getting recognition for university training obtained outside Canada

• Obtaining documentation required by the CACB

• Obtaining information on licensing procedures and Requirements

• Paying the costs of getting licensed

Labour Market Factors:

• Getting recognized Canadian work experience

• Being hired into an architectural internship

Training:

• Obtaining basic English or French language training

• Obtaining training in English or French for professional use

• Obtaining professional training such as CAD

• Being admitted to a university to take training required to meet CACB requirements

• Fitting time to take courses into my employment obligations

Support:

• Getting advice from someone who knows the architectural profession and the architectural industry

Survey respondents were also asked to rank the first and second most important challenges.

Regulatory factors rank high, with the exception of obtaining information on licensing procedures and requirements, which was still ranked as the first or second most important challenge by 26% of respondents. Figure No. 43 summarizes the survey data on six regulatory factors.



Figure No. 43 Proportion of IAGs who Ranked Various Regulatory Factors

as the 1st or 2nd Most Challenging Obstacle to Becoming Registered in Canada (IAG Survey)

41% 39% 38%35%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Getting formalrecognition forprofessionalexperience

outside Canada

Paying the costsof gettinglicensed

Obtainingdocumentationrequired by the

CACB

Gettingrecognition for

universitytraining obtainedoutside Canada

Obtaininginformtion on

licensingprocedures and

requirements

Labour market factors were equally important as regulatory factors. Figure No. 44 shows that 38% of IAG’s identified ‘being hired into an architectural internship’ as the first or second most challenging obstacle. This is similar to the ranking given to the three most important regulatory factors.

Figure No. 44 Proportion of IAGs who Ranked Labour Market Factors


38%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Being hired into an architecturalinternship

Getting recognized Canadian workexperience



With respect to training factors, the principal challenges appear to be not so much the availability of training as ‘fitting time to take courses into my employment obligations’. As can be seen in Figure No. 45, 33% of respondents ranked this factor as their first or second most important challenge. This points to the potential importance of offering IAGs opportunities for professional study that can be undertaken through ‘distance education’ channels or during the evenings and weekends. Comments in focus groups confirm the value to many IAGs of making required training available through a ‘distance education’ channel.

Basic language training (either English or French) appears not to be a major challenge for IAGs. Fewer than 10% ranked the availability of such training as a major challenge. For English-speaker, ‘professional use’ language training ranked somewhat higher, but was still identified as a significant challenge by fewer than 20% of respondents. Among Quebec residents, fewer than 10% identified ‘professional use’ language training as a significant challenge.

Figure No. 45 Proportion of IAGs who Ranked Training Factors


33%

23%20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Fitting time to takecourses into my

employment obligations

Being admitted to auniversity to take

training required tomeet CACB

requirements

Obtaining professionaltraining such as CAD

The final factor tracked in the survey is described as ‘support’, namely ‘getting advice from someone who knows the architectural industry and the architectural profession’. As Figure No. 46 shows, this factor was ranked as the first or second most important challenge by 28% of IAGs. However, approximately two-thirds of these individuals were not employed in an architectural practice. Consequently, this problem cannot be addressed through employer-based initiatives.



Figure No. 46 Proportion of IAGs who Ranked “Getting Advice from Someone who

Knows the Architectural Profession and the Architectural Industry” as the 1st or 2nd Most Challenging Obstacle to Becoming Registered in Canada

(IAG Survey)

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Getting advice from someone who knows the architecturalprofession and the industry

Comparing Employer and IAG Perspectives

Based on the foregoing discussion, the most important challenges, as identified by IAGs, are:

Regulatory: 1. Getting formal recognition for professional experience outside Canada 2. Getting recognition for university training obtained outside Canada 3. Obtaining documentation required by the CACB 4. Paying the costs of getting licensed

Labour Market

5. Being hired into an architectural internship Training:

6. Fitting time to take courses into employment obligations

Employers’ perceptions are consistent with those of IAGs in several respects, though there are important differences. The two barriers or challenges most frequently cited by employers were:

• difficulty obtaining formal recognition of prior professional experience’ (38%), and



• difficulty obtaining documentation required for assessment of university training received outside Canada (33%).

Employers generally ranked the cost of assessment much lower than IAGs. Also employers ranked ‘difficulty finding an internship’ much lower than did IAGs. Difficulty obtaining training also ranked lower in employers’ perceptions. More significantly, employers regarded ‘language proficiency’ as a more significant challenge (32%). The greater importance attached to language issues is consistent with the difference in language proficiency perceptions discussed earlier.

Overall, employers and IAGs have a shared perception of the challenges represented by the regulatory system. Our interviews with employers revealed considerable sympathy with the frustrations of IAGs in dealing with regulatory requirements. IAGs attach greater significance to labour market and training challenges than do employers. In the case of training, the principal issue is reconciling required training with employment obligations.

Regulators’ Perspectives

Regulators stress the need to relate international education and experience to Canadian requirements. As noted earlier the regulation of architecture as a profession and the scope of architectural practice varies across countries. International educational qualifications and experience cannot be taken at face value. First, stated qualifications and experience must be confirmed as accurate. Second, the substance of qualifications and experience must be evaluated in light of Canadian requirements. Former U.S. Speaker Tip O’Neill once famously observed that “all politics are local”. The same can be said of construction. Building science is strongly influenced by local climate conditions. Similarly, there is a strong local or regional dimension to such important aspects of design and construction management as:

• how the construction industry is organized,

• which building materials are used,

• how design takes account of climate conditions,

• approval procedures for designs,

• environmental regulations,

• building codes,

• liability systems, and

• other legal obligations.



A substantial part of architectural practice is strongly shaped by conditions and requirements that have a specific jurisdictional character. It is not possible to be a competent architect without be fully versed in the specific jurisdictional character of these aspects of professional practice. Regulators would fail to fulfill their statutory and ethical duty if they were not to evaluate foreign experience in terms of whether that experience confers knowledge that is applicable in the Canadian context.

The lack of knowledge of the specifically Canadian features of key areas of professional practice is the leading skill deficiency among IAGs. While IAGs are aware of this skill deficiency, they may tend to under-estimate its importance to both regulators and employers.

The lack of knowledge of the specifically Canadian features of key areas of professional practice is the common requirement for upgrade training when an IAG seeks CACB certification. Area 6 of the Canadian Education Standard deals with professional ethics and responsibility, liability and the legal environment. In many cases, the international experience of IAGs still leaves them requiring supervised Canadian experience to ensure that they have understood how the specifically Canadian features of key areas of professional practice apply on a day-to-day basis. Regulators generally believe that that a full waiver of the requirement for supervised Canadian experience would introduce uncertainty as to whether an IAG applicant for admission to the profession was fully qualified. That being said, many regulators have introduced policies to ease the internship requirement for experienced IAGs.

Summary

A number of conclusions arise from the foregoing profile of IAGs which are pertinent to formulating a strategy to more effectively integrate IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession:

First: there are important differences within IAGs. A significant proportion (approximately half) had eight or more years of professional experience prior to immigrating to Canada. These IAGs should be described as International Architectural Professionals.

Second: IAGs are strongly motivated to enter the Canadian architectural profession. A high degree of motivation is also among the most significant advantages that architectural practices note in employing IAGs.

Third: while information resources are generally adequate, there is room for improvement. The web is by far the most important channel for information. There is also an important role for employers as sources of information and advice. The process of navigating through the requirements to become professionally qualified are insufficiently personal. There is an important role for personal advisors that is only partially met by employers and colleagues.



Fourth: only a minority of IAGs obtain information on professional qualification requirements prior to emigrating to Canada.

Fifth: IAGs are disproportionately employed by large employers.

Sixth: many IAGs have significant difficulties getting employment in the architectural industry and getting hired into an internship. There appears to be a growing imbalance between the supply of internship openings and the demand for these positions. The increased number of IAGs is making this imbalance more serious. As well, the settlement patterns of IAGs also make the imbalance more acute in some regions.

Seventh: IAGs generally evaluate their language skills higher than do employers.

Eighth: employment obligations can make it challenging to obtain required upgrade training.

Ninth: employers and regulators attach a high degree of importance to understanding the specifically Canadian dimensions of important areas of architectural practice. While IAGs report that they understand this skill requirement, they may under-estimate its importance.

P



5. Recommendations

Summarizing the Challenge

Over the past two decades, Canadian immigration policy has changed significantly. There has been a dramatic increase in the scale of the annual immigration intake and an equally important change in its composition. Annual immigration flows into Canada have increased from less than 85,000 in 1985 (though higher before then) to over 250,000 in 2005. A generation ago, family re-unification and skilled or semi-skilled manual workers dominated the immigration inflow. Over the past ten years, as a result of changes to the ‘point system’, ‘skilled workers’ and their dependents now account for 50% of total immigration intake. Four out of five of these ‘skilled workers’ have a university degree. Many also have post-graduate training. The cumulative impact of these changes has had, and is continuing to have, important consequences for professional occupations and their regulators.

As a statutorily regulated profession, architecture is very much affected by the fundamental changes in the labour market which have occurred as a result of the re-orientation of immigration policy. The current system of admitting candidates to the practice of architecture was designed to deal with a labour market that is quite different from conditions which now prevail. It was expected the preponderance of new entrants into architecture would be graduates of Canadian university programs that are accredited by the CACB and that foreign trained professions would be the exception. The CACB’s resources reflect this premise. At the provincial level, the system of regulation assumed that the preponderance of candidates for entry into the profession would be recent graduates for whom a rigorous 5,600-hour internship is an appropriate stage of professional development prior to formal admission to the profession. It was implicitly assumed that significant non-Canadian professional experience would the exception.

Immigration trends have put into question some of the key premises of the current system of regulating access to the architectural profession. In the first place, immigration is now a significant source of new entrants into the architectural work force. Immigration now accounts for more than a quarter of new entrants into the architectural work force and, in some regions, a much higher proportion. And second, many of these immigrants have more than 10 years of professional experience in architecture. As a result, there is a growing incongruity between the regulatory system for admitting persons to the profession of architecture and trends in Canadian society. Growing numbers of immigrants, who were experienced professional architects in their country of origin, feel that the system of professional regulation imposes too many hurdles on their admission. These individuals feel cheated and misled by the immigration system and by Canada.

The personal costs to individuals is already high. Their frustration and dissatisfaction will increase as will the economic and social cost to Canada of not integrating more trained immigrants into the



profession for which they were trained. All of this will increase the pressure to impose a politically-driven ‘solution’.

The architectural profession also faces a second and broader challenge. A growing number of persons trained in architecture at the university level are working in the architectural industry, but are not registered as professional architects and are not on the path to become registered. There is evidence of this trend among Canadian graduates. The recent increase in the number of IAGs immigrating to Canada has magnified this trend.

The third challenge to the profession is essentially moral. The RAIC reflects the view of the profession when it describes architecture as “a passion, a vocation, [and] a calling…”. There is a large and growing number of individuals in Canada who were experienced professional architects in their country of origin, but who are not members of the Canadian profession. Architecture is also their ‘passion, vocation and calling’. They want to be part of the community of professional architects in Canada. A regulatory system which has the effect of discouraging or preventing a large majority of these professionals from joining the Canadian profession needs to changed. In the absence of changes, the imperative to ‘do something’ will become more urgent.

Simply admitting internationally trained architectural graduates into the Canadian profession with only limited scrutiny of their education or experience is not a viable solution. The practice of architecture is regulated for sound public policy reasons. Unsound design can jeopardize public safety and have profoundly adverse financial implications for both the owners of built structures and for society. Good design is an inextricable aspect of sustainable development. Poor design degrades both the physical and the aesthetic environment. Clients have a right to expect that licensed professional architects are competent in the full range of activities from the design of a structure to managing the implementation of that design. No one is served by lowering professional standards in architecture. The provincial and territorial regulatory bodies have both a statutory and a moral duty to establish, administer and enforce high professional standards. The basic challenge for the profession is to reconcile this statutory and moral duty with the important changes that have taken place in the Canadian architectural labour force, in other words, to integrate significantly more IAGs into the profession without, in any way, diluting or lowering the standards for admission into the profession.

Three Principles

As a basis for developing a strategy to integrate more IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession without, in any way, diluting or lowering standards for admission, we propose three principles:

1. All applicants for admission to the profession of architecture in Canada should comply with the Canadian Education Standard (CES) agreed upon by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies.



2. The Canadian system of professional qualification24 should recognize that when any person can demonstrate that he or she has significant experience in practicing architecture that was acquired outside Canada and is equivalent to Canadian standards of practice, then there needs to be a way to recognize this experience appropriately.

3. Many IAGs face specific challenges that are different in nature or degree from the challenges faced by domestic graduates. While some of these challenges have their basis in the Canadian regulatory system, many are outside that system. A comprehensive strategy to more effectively integrate IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession needs to address labour market and training challenges, as well as regulatory issues.

Recommendations

Regulatory System

Recommendation No. 1: Within an overall framework of demonstrated competency, the administration of the ‘common admission standard’ should better accommodate significant prior professional experience where this is relevant. The focus of the next phase of work on integrating more IAGs into the architectural profession should develop more fully a modus operandi for applying this principle. The schematic on the following page illustrates the proposed path to professional licensure/registration.

As can be seen in the schematic the key change in the proposed path to professional licensure/ registration is incorporation of an evaluation of professional experience at the CACB stage. At present, the CACB evaluates only an applicant’s educational qualifications and does not take into account an applicant’s professional experience. Adoption of this recommendation would broaden the CACB’s mandate enabling it to take account of relevant professional experience when educational qualifications, on their own, do not appear to meet the CES. This is a complex task. The manner in which such professional experience should be defined, evaluated and taken into account will require further work. Adoption of this recommendation provides direction to undertake this work. 24‘System of professional qualification’ means all components of the ‘common admission

standard’ adopted by the provincial and territorial regulators, namely (1) the system of certifying educational qualifications through the CACB, (2) the requirement to complete an internship under the Intern Architect Program, (3) the requirement to pass the Architectural Registration Examination, i.e., the 9 NCARB examinations, and (4) the requirement to take such other courses as may be prescribed by provincial and territorial regulators.



Schematic Illustrating Proposed Path to Professional Registration

IAG’s and Syllabus graduates, accredited and non-accredited graduates

Canadian Architectural Certification Board:

evaluates academic credentials

acceptable: proceed


identified

1. evaluate experience & determine equivalencies if possible

2. additional study required: syllabus or other institutional courses

CACB certification awarded

Provincial or Territorial Regulator:

evaluates internship experience and specific competencies

acceptable: proceed


identified

1. re-evaluate experience and determine remedies, if possible

2. additional coursework required: regulators and educational institutions

Examination(s)

Registration



Recommendation No. 2: The provincial and territorial regulators, the CACB and the RAIC should establish a common web portal that provides detailed information on the Canadian system of professional qualification and on the Canadian architectural industry. This web portal should include a check list of documents that an IAG should obtain prior to immigrating to Canada.

There is a substantial amount of information on the web regarding the qualification procedures for architecture in Canada. The provincial and territorial regulators, the CACB and the RAIC have invested considerable resources in making their web sites useful sources of information. There is information of a more general nature on other sites, such as settlement.org and on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) site. It would be helpful to IAGs if there was a single portal that provided complete and detailed information. As appropriate, this site could link to provincial and territorial regulators or contain content provided by the various regulators.

Recommendation No. 3: The RAIC, as the key advocacy body in the profession, should facilitate meetings between the CACB and the provincial and territorial regulators and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to ensure that Canadian Immigration Officers have a package of complete and current information and references to provide to prospective immigrants to Canada who identify architecture as their intended occupation. IAGs contemplating immigration to Canada should be encouraged to at least initiate, and, when practical, complete their CACB certification prior to immigrating

There is a serious incongruity between the expectations fostered by the immigration system and the complex realities of the Canadian labour market and the system of professional regulation. Our survey data show that too many IAGs have only a partial understanding of the requirements for professional licensure or registration prior to immigrating to Canada. As a result, many do not have the documentation required to obtain CACB certification or to obtain credit toward internship, based on their prior professional experience. This frequently introduces significant, but otherwise avoidable, delays in receiving CACB certification and can lead to an inability to obtain credit for prior professional experience owing to a lack of documentation.

Recommendation No. 4: The CACB needs to upgrade its computer network and systems so as to be able to implement a certification database solution that would enable the CACB to publish on its web site a list of universities and programmes and the relevant years for which it has calendars and course descriptions on file. The CACB should publicize its positive administrative practices of not requiring re-submission of calendars and course descriptions that are already found in its files and not requiring translation of such documents by each individual applicant. The CACB and the provincial and territorial



regulators should explore ways of integrating their electronic systems to enable a better access and exchange of candidates’ information. Such integration would eliminate the need to submit duplicate documentation to the CACB and then to the provincial or territorial regulators. would be cost effective for the CACB and the regulators and would be helpful to applicants.

It has been the CACB’s administrative practice to advise IAGs when it has on file calendars and course descriptions for the relevant years from the university or program where an IAG obtained his or her first professional degree. Although submission of officially translated documents is a requirement, the CACB also offers applicants cost-offsetting solutions when paying for an official translation of voluminous documents is problematic. These are positive administrative practices which can significantly expedite the processing of applications and reduce the preparation and cost burden of applicants. The CACB should publicize these administrative practices and should encourage applicants to contact the CACB to determine whether they may be able to take advantage of any of these administrative practices. Publishing on the CACB website information on which universities or programs and for which years the CACB has calendar and course information will require an upgrade to the CACB’s website, network and systems, as will linking with the electronic systems of the provincial and territorial regulators.

Recommendation No. 5: The RAIC, CACB and the provincial and territorial regulators should propose to the federal government that all reasonable costs incurred by an IAG in obtaining and translating documentation for the CACB and/or the provincial and territorial regulators and taking required courses should be made tax deductible. This policy would also be relevant to other professions. Therefore, the RAIC should also consider consulting with other national organizations representing regulated professions concerning a common representation on this matter.

Many IAGs pointed to the financial costs associated with completing a CACB application as a major challenge. These costs include but are not limited to: couriers, notaries, translators, photo-copying and course-related fees and expenditures. In some instances travel costs are involved, if an interview is required. All of these costs are legitimate expenses incurred for the purpose of pursuing professional employment. Course fees are deductible only if they are delivered by a designated educational institution. Some professional courses are not so classified. All of these costs ought to be deductible against income. Since many IAGs will experience a period of low income that may coincide with these costs, they should also be afforded the opportunity to defer the deduction for a reasonable period of time so as to maximize the tax advantage.



Labour Market

Recommendation No. 6: The RAIC and the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies should monitor job opening trends relative to estimated demand. The proposed single web portal should also provide a clearing house for employment opportunities. Immigration counsellors should encourage persons contemplating immigration to Canada to take careful note of current labour market information when determining where they will settle.

One of the clear trends to emerge from immigration data is the concentration of settlement in larger metropolitan centres, chiefly Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. This settlement pattern accentuates absorption difficulties in the architectural services industry. Only 43% of IAGs in our survey reported that they had obtained information on professional registration prior to immigrating. It is reasonable to surmise that an even lower proportion obtained information on the architectural labour market. Indeed, finding such information would have been difficult. Providing current and regionalized information on the architectural labour market in Canada could usefully affect settlement patterns and facilitate the integration of more IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession.

Training

Recommendation No. 7: Consideration should be given to developing courses that specifically address areas of practice that are unfamiliar to many IAGs. These would include, but not be limited to: building science, construction materials, product and construction standards, construction methods and the relevance to design of climate, environmental, and seismic factors. These courses could be delivered by regulatory bodies, accredited Canadian schools or architecture, designated educational institutions, or under the auspices of the RAIC Syllabus Program.

Regulators and employers noted specific areas in which many IAGs require upgrade training. Area 6 in the CACB standard application is ‘Knowledge of the Profession’ and covers such topics as: professional ethics, knowledge of legal obligations (building codes, environmental regulations, lien, applicable common law, relevant occupational safety law, and municipal approval procedures, etc.), and understanding of professional liability. These are areas that are central to the competent practice of architecture. An individual who was trained outside of Canada and who practised outside of Canada is unlikely to be familiar with specific Canadian requirements. IAGs who receive conditional certification from the CACB most commonly are required to take a course (or courses) covering Area 6. These courses can be taken either through one of the accredited Canadian university schools of architecture or through the RAIC Syllabus Program on a ‘distance education’ basis.



Many IAGs also require upgrade training in building science and construction methods and materials (including product standards) that are specific to Canada. For example, IAGs from Asia, Africa and Latin America are often more familiar with the use of concrete and masonry for structural purposes than wood frame. The use of drywall is also less common in these regions. In any country, efficient design must take account of climate conditions. These are quite different in Canada than in many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. As well construction administration and project management may also differ. IAGs have already mastered the basic principles of design, construction administration, and project management. What many IAGs require are courses that take this understanding of principles into account and focus on the specific needs and features of architecture and construction in the Canadian context. Such training would abbreviate the learning curve for IAGs and make them more valuable members of architectural teams. Through such training, it may be possible to increase the number of practices that are open to hiring IAGs.

There are various options for designing and delivering courses focused on IAG needs. Provincial and territorial regulatory bodies could maintain a roster of relevant courses delivered by universities, colleges and professional development centres. Specific courses could be developed under national auspices with provincial and territorial bodies delivering these courses themselves or designating particular institutions to deliver the courses. And finally, the RAIC Syllabus Program could explore developing such courses for delivery through distance education channels. In light of the existing body of curriculum in the RAIC Syllabus Program and its renewal activities, this may be an attractive option.

Recommendation No. 8: Consideration should be given to making greater use of ‘distance education’ as an optional channel, where practical, for IAGs who require upgrade training. Online courses should be used where feasible. These courses could be offered by an accredited Canadian university school of architecture, the RAIC Syllabus Program, or any other provider approved by the provincial and territorial regulatory bodies.

Survey data show that many IAGs have difficulty fitting courses into their employment obligations. This may also be the case with Canadian graduates of accredited programs. Greater use of the ‘distance education’ channel should be encouraged. Survey data and focus groups both support greater use of the ‘distance education’ option.

In the last ten years, there has been a sea change in the use of the web for ‘distance education’. Web-based courses have moved from the margin to the mainstream.

Accredited university schools of architecture and the RAIC Syllabus Program are both appropriate vehicles for expanding ‘distance education’ offers. Indeed, the RAIC Syllabus Program was



established from the beginning as a program in which ‘distance education’ (though not on the web model) plays a key role, alongside studio instruction. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of IAGs taking upgrade courses through the RAIC Syllabus Program. The profession should explore further options for expanding the role of ‘distance education’.

Support

Recommendation No. 9: Efforts should be made to personalize, to a greater degree, where feasible, the process of navigating through the procedures required to gain admission to the profession.

The process of qualifying for admission to the architectural profession is complex. For some IAGs, the requirements can be discouraging. There is clearly a need to personalize, to a much greater degree, the process of getting through the regulatory requirements. The OAA is currently administering a pilot project involving mentors for IAGs. The results of this project are potentially important to other associations, institutes and ordres.

Large employers can also play an important role. As noted in Chapter Four, most IAGs are employed by large employers. These employers should be encouraged to formally designate advisors for their IAG employees. To support this initiative, provincial and territorial regulatory bodies and the CACB should provide these advisors with background kits. As well, a ‘hot line’ channel to the CACB or regulatory bodies should be considered for these advisors.

Recommendation No. 10: Provincial and territorial regulatory bodies should take steps to formalize a process for ensuring that they receive ongoing input into the distinct challenges faced by IAGs seeking to enter the architectural profession.

Some provincial and territorial bodies have formally constituted advisory bodies composed of IAGs. Others have conducted surveys and focus groups to better understand the challenges faced by IAGs. These are positive developments. Formally establishing advisory bodies composed of IAGs would raise the priority of dealing with the challenges faced by IAGs. Establishing such bodies would also remove some of the misunderstanding that now surrounds the regulatory process and the rationale for its provisions.



Funding

Recommendation No. 11: There are financial costs associated with developing and then implementing Recommendation No. 1. These costs include, among others: (1) developing competency standards, (2) developing standards for evaluating dossiers, (3) comparing the scope, regulation and standards of practice in other jurisdictions where IAGs are obtaining non-Canadian experience, and (4) developing the broad consensus required for national standards to be adopted. As well, Recommendation No. 4 will also entail significant costs. External support will be needed to assist in meeting these costs.

Recommendation No. 1 has potentially significant cost implications. Competency standards must be developed and consensus must be achieved around these standards. There is also a need to develop standards and procedures for evaluating dossiers in terms of the competency standards. As well, comparisons must be made of the scope, regulation and standards of practice in other jurisdictions if the evaluation of non-Canadian experience is to be valid.

Recommendation No. 4 will entail significant costs. The computer systems upgrade and network integration proposed in Recommendation No. 4 will need a contribution from external sources as these bear significant design and development costs. The enhanced and integrated systems proposed also will require ongoing maintenance and upgrade. These costs should be factored into the budgets of all organizations involved. Broad consultations within the profession regarding systems integration will be needed.

It is unrealistic to expect these costs to be borne by increased charges levied on applicants for CACB certification or licensure. The resources of the national bodies, as well as provincial regulatory bodies are limited. To rely on these resources would unreasonably delay developing and implementing the changes that are needed to more effectively integrate IAGs into the Canadian architectural profession. Therefore, the RAIC , CACB and provincial and territorial regulators should explore potential sources of external support for this work.

P

February 2007



Appendices

I Steering Committee

II List of Persons Interviewed

III Roundtable – September 21, 2006

IV Surveys



Appendix I

Steering Committee Members

Vincent F. Alcaide, MRAIC, Architect Alcaide Webster Architects Inc., Ottawa, Ontario

Donna Andrews Analyst, Operations Foreign Credential Recognition Workplace Skills Branch Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Gatineau, Quebec

Claudio Brun del Re, FRAIC, Architect Assistant-Director (Planning and Programming) Physical Resources Service University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario

David Covo, FRAIC, Architect Director School of Architecture McGill University Montreal, Quebec

Murray Gallant, MRAIC, Architect Senior Architect – Design Management Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa, Ontairo

Jay Hiscox, MRAIC, Architect Associate Architect Stantec Architecture Vancouver, B.C.

Jon Hobbs, FRAIC, Architect Executive Director Royal Architectural Institute of Canada

Barry Johns, FRAIC, Architect Barry Johns (Architecture) Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta

Marina Lavrow, MA, MBA, CMC Executive Director Canadian Architectural Certification Board

R. I. (Ian) Macdonald, FRAIC, Architect Consulting Architect and Planner Winnipeg, Manitoba

Vivian Manasc, FRAIC, Architect Manasc Isaac Architects Ltd Edmonton, Alberta

Len Rodrigues, FRAIC, Architect University Architect University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta

Carole Scheffer, FRAIC, Architect Architecte Westmount, Quebec



Appendix II

List of Persons Interviewed

Professional Associations, Institutes, Ordre

Architect Institute of British Columbia • Dorothy Barkley, Executive Director • Stuart Howard, Past President • Gordon Richards, Registrar • Sharna Searle, Director of Registration • Roisin O’Neill, Registration Coordinator

Alberta Association of Architects • Naomi Minja, Executive Director

Saskatchewan Association of Architects • John Parry, Executive Director

Manitoba Association of Architects • Judy Pestrak, Executive Director

Ontario Association of Architects • Hillel Roebuck, Registrar • Jessica O’Rafferty, Administrator - Admission • Philip Hollett, Deputy Registrar

Ordre d’Architecture du Québec • Carole Giard, registraire

Association of Architects of New Brunswick • Karen Chantler, Executive Director

Nova Scotia Association of Architects • Diane Scott, Executive Director

Newfoundland Association of Architects • Stan Hampton, Registrar • Lynda Hayward, Administrative Director

Northwest Territories Association of Architects • Keith Sanders, Registrar

Settlement Organizations

Eunice Mahama Capacity Alberta in Calgary

Tahira Qamar Daniel Ndirangu Association for Access to Professions of Planning and Architecture Toronto

Lorraine Kelly Jewish Vocational Services Toronto

Steve Burland Association of Foreign Registered Architects Vancouver



Muriel Jansen Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association Halifax

Rumani Singh MOSAIC Vancouver

Faribah Elahi MOHANDES Canadian Society of Iranian Engineers and Architects Toronto

Fabienne Younan Centre d'Accueil et de Référence sociale et. économique pour Immigrants (CARI ) Montreal

Alexandre Pavlovski, Capacity Nova Scotia Halifax

Priti Shah, Capacity BC BC Internationally Trained Professional Network Vancouver

Frédéric Plante Carrefour d’aide aux nouveaux arrivants (CANA) Montreal

Irina Gradisteanu, Le Promis Montreal

Nehru Gunaratnam, Newcomer Information Centre Mississauga

Employers

Brian Shigetomi, architect Atelier Pacific Architecture Inc. Vancouver

Azad Chichmanian, architecte Montreal

Rick Balbi, architect Rick Balbi Architects Ltd Calgary

Catherine Bélanger, architecte Montreal

Jim Wagner, architect Cohlmayer Architects Winnipeg

Eugene Pieczonka, architect Lyndon Lynch Architects Halifax

Fernand Beauchamp, architecte Travaux publics du Canada section Québec Montreal

Gabriela Bérézianu, architecte City of Montreal Montreal



Roman Kucharczyk Giffels Toronto

Geraldine Rayner, Kasian Architecture Interior Design and Planning Ltd Vancouver

Michel Aubé, architecte Université Laval Quebéc

Ajon Moriyama, architect Moriyama and Teshima Architects Toronto

Paul Gogan, architect Bregman and Hamaan Toronto

Jean-Pierre Landry, architect Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa

David Down City of Calgary Calgary

Len Rodrigues, architect University of Alberta, Edmonton

Brian Saunders, architect Saunders Evans Architects Regina

Len Castro, architect Stantec Calgary

Steve Tucker, architect Mackay Lyons Sweetapple Halifax

Walter Francl, arhcitect Walter Francl Architects Vancouver

Gerald Stein, architect Zeidler Partnership Toronto

Brian Oakley City of Edmonton



Appendix III

Round Table

McGill University – September 21, 2006

Attendees

Provincial / Territorial Architectural Associations

Association Name Title AIBC Dorothy Barkley

Stuart Howard, MRAIC Executive Director, AIBC Past President, AIBC

AAA Doug Campbell, MRAIC Naomi Minja, MRAIC

President, AAA Executive Director, AAA

SAA Colin Tennent, MRAIC Natal Laycock

President, SAA Representative, SAA

MAA Barrie Ottenbreit, MRAIC Judy Pestrak

President, MAA Executive Director, MAA

OAA Kristi Doyle Jeff Perry

Director of Policy, OAA Councillor, OAA

OAQ Jean-Pierre Dumont Carole Giard

Secrétaire de l’OAQ Registraire de l’OAQ

NSAA Eugene Pieczonka, MRAIC Diane Scott

President, NSAA Executive Director, NSAA

AANB Karen Chantler Edward Goguen, MRAIC

Executive Director, AANB Past President, AANB

AAPEI Holly Hinds, MRAIC David Lopes, MRAIC

Representative, AAPEI President, AAPEI

NAA Jim Case, MRAIC Kerry Gosse

Representative, NAA Representative, NAA

NWTAA Simon Taylor President, NWTAA HRSDC Steering Committee Donna Andrews Funder – HRSDC Vincent Alcaide, MRAIC AWA Architects David Covo, FRAIC McGill University, School of Architecture Murray Gallant, MRAIC President, CACB Jay Hiscox, MRAIC Director, Syllabus Jon Hobbs, FRAIC Executive Director, RAIC Marina Lavrow CACB Ian Macdonald, FRAIC Chair, Syllabus Task Force Vivian Manasc, FRAIC President, RAIC Leonard Rodrigues, FRAIC RAIC Regional Director Alberta/NWT Carole Scheffer, FRAIC Carole Scheffer Architect



Consultants John O’ Grady Consultant – Prism Economics Cathia Badière Consultant – Prism Economics RAIC Board and Staff Name Title Vivian Manasc, FRAIC President Yves Gosselin, AP/FIRAC Past President Kiyoshi Matsuzaki, FRAIC 1st Vice President Randy Dhar, FRAIC Regional Director Ontario Southwest Stuart Howard, MRAIC Regional Director BC/Yukon Leonard Rodrigues, FRAIC Regional Director Alberta/NWT Andrew Wach, MRAIC Regional Director Saskatchewan/Manitoba Ralph Wiesbrock, MRAIC Regional Director Ontario North and East and Nunavut Paule Boutin, MIRAC Regional Director Quebec Dan Goodspeed, MRAIC Regional Director Atlantic Paul-André Tétreault, AP/FIRAC Chancellor College of Fellows Eric Haldenby, FRAIC Chair CCUSA Jon Hobbs, FRAIC Executive Director, RAIC Sylvie Powell Communications Consultant, RAIC Claire Hodge Coordinator, Executive Services and Professional Development, RAIC



Report of Round Table Discussion on

More Effective Integration of International Architectural Graduates

September 21, 2006

McGill School of Architecture, Montreal

This report is a synopsis of discussions that took place at a Round Table convened by the RAIC McGill School of Architecture on September 21, 2006. Participants in the Round Table included: the board of directors of the RAIC, senior staff and officers of the CACB, and senior staff and officers of the provincial and territorial associations/institutes/ordre. No votes were taken. The conclusions and ideas that emerged from the Round Table discussion are intended for future consideration and should not be interpreted as conclusions or proposals that have been endorsed or are in any sense binding on the RAIC, the CACB or the provincial and territorial associations/institutes/ordre.

General Conclusions: 1. The profession faces challenges in sustaining the system of professional licensure. There is a need

to build support for the licensure system among the graduates of accredited Canadian schools of architecture. However, the need to address these larger challenges should not deflect attention from the specific challenges faced by IAGs, and especially by those IAGs who were licensed in their country of origin and who have a history of professional practice in their country of origin.

To some degree the reluctance of IAGs to pursue professional registration mirrors trends among Canadian architectural graduates. There are broader challenges facing the profession in regard to sustaining and strengthening the system of professional licensure. However, it would be a serious error to allow the importance of these broader issues to divert energies from addressing the specific need to improve the integration of IAGs into the Canadian profession. At the same time, in dealing with the issues that are specific to IAGs, the profession should not lose site of the challenges of sustaining the system of professional licensure and building support for this system among employers and graduates of accredited Canadian schools.

2. There is a need to address the integration of International Architectural Graduates (IAGs) more

effectively. The Canadian system of professional qualification should be seen as (and also be) inclusive, fair, transparent and not unduly protracted.

Over the past 10 years (1996 to 2005), Citizenship and Immigration Canada reports that 2,780 persons who immigrated to Canada identified architecture as their profession. Data suggest that



fewer than one-third of these immigrants seek professional registration in architecture in Canada. In recent years, the number of immigrants to Canada who identify their profession as architecture approximately equals the number of persons graduating from accredited Canadian schools of architecture. Indeed, if foreign students are subtracted from the number of graduates of accredited Canadian schools, immigration now exceeds university graduation as a source of potential new entrants into the profession. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the number of persons emigrating to Canada annually, who identify architecture as their intended profession, has almost doubled. The profession’s approach to qualifying persons as architects needs to reflect these changes in demographics.

3. The current system of qualifying IAGs does not give sufficient weight to their professional status

and experience in their country of origin. When an individual has demonstrated his or her professional competence in another country, account should be taken of this experience and qualification.

The preponderance of International Architectural Graduates (IAGs) arrive in Canada having practised architecture in their country of origin and having been professionally ‘licensed’ as architects in their country of origin. (By ‘licensed’, we mean entitled to practice architecture. Some countries have a system of licensure that may be similar to Canada’s system. In other country’s, professional registration may not entail experience requirements and examinations.) Preliminary survey data indicate that over 80% of IAGs worked in architecture prior to emigrating to Canada and that approximately 70% of IAGs were licensed as architects in their country of origin. The system for qualifying in Canada does not appear to take account of the fact that a large majority of IAGs have already met licensing requirements, albeit in another jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, the requirement to prove educational qualifications should be inverse to years of professional experience.

4. The system of evaluating educational qualifications and professional experience should be streamlined.

There is widespread agreement that for IAGs, who were licensed in the country of origin and who practised architecture, the current system for evaluating both educational qualifications and professional experience can be time-consuming and costly. While regulatory bodies make every effort to process applications for certification and registration quickly, the steps in the process and the nature of the documentation that is required inevitably makes the process complex. A streamlining strategy is needed. This strategy may require establishing an alternative channel for certification and registration designed to reflect the circumstances of IAGs who were licensed in the country of origin and who practised architecture.



5. For IAGs who were licensed in their country of origin and who have a history of professional practice, the Canadian system for professional registration can be time-consuming and costly. This is especially the case when an IAG must provide copies of the university calendars (or course descriptions) applicable to his or her training in architecture. Translation of these documents may add significant costs to the certification process.

The current procedure for professional registration requires that an applicant first have their educational qualifications certified by the CACB and, where necessary, take additional training to cover any deficiencies. To certify educational qualifications, the CACB requires information on the university-level courses taken by an applicant. This information is typically either the course outlines or the course descriptions from the university calendars applicable at the time the individual completed the courses. The CACB maintains a library of course descriptions and calendars, but this library is limited to previously submitted materials. For many IAGs, the time and cost of obtaining the required documentation can be a major deterrent to pursuing professional registration in Canada.

6. The system of professional qualification for architects in Canada should be fair and equitable in its treatment of IAGs and Canadian graduates.

There are four streams of applicants (or potential applicants) for professional registration in Canada: (1) graduates from accredited Canadian and U.S. architectural schools, (2) IAGs who were previously licensed in their country of origin, (3) IAGs who were not previously licensed in their country of origin, (4) graduates of currently accredited schools of architecture who graduated prior to the introduction of the accreditation system. The specific circumstances of each of these streams of applicants (or potential applicants) should be taken into account. The overriding principles should be reasonableness and fair and equitable treatment. The system of qualifying persons should not give preference to one group over the others. Generally speaking, the standards for qualifying an IAG should be the same as for a Canadian (or U.S.) graduate. However, the Canadian system of qualification should recognize that when any person can demonstrate that he or she has significant equivalent experience in practicing architecture that was accrued outside Canada, then there needs to be a way to recognize this experience appropriately.

7. In assessing previously licensed IAGs, the focus of the Canadian regulatory system should be on

addressing gaps in the scope of professional practice, rather than on requiring a previously licensed IAG to prove his or her competence in all areas of professional practice.

The scope of professional architecture practice in Canada sometimes differs from the scope in other jurisdictions. For example, in Canada, architects undertake field review and construction administration, but may not do so in other countries. Also, in some countries, architects are chiefly engaged in design and rarely produce construction documents. In these countries,



construction documents are usually produced by builders, whereas, in Canada, architects undertake this function. In any jurisdiction, licensure attests only to competence within the defined scope of professional practice. Consequently professional licensure in some jurisdictions may not be strictly commensurate with professional licensure in Canada. The Canadian system needs to recognize where the scope of practice in other countries is commensurate and where there are gaps.

8. Knowledge of Canadian Building Codes, construction practices, the legal and regulatory

framework for construction, and professional practice matters are key aspects of the scope of architecture in Canada. The majority of IAGs are likely to require specific training in these areas.

Preliminary results from the survey or architectural practices confirm that, with few exceptions, IAGs have satisfactory design skills and satisfactory knowledge of building technology and engineering. Fewer than 10% of architectural practices with IAGs reported that weakness in these areas is a challenge in employing IAGs. By contrast, approximately 50% of firms with IAGs reported that IAGs’ knowledge of building codes, construction practices and the legal and regulatory framework are a challenge. The reputation of the architectural profession would be seriously damaged if competency requirements in these areas were weakened.

In the main, the training needs of experienced and previously licensed IAGs are focused on knowledge of Canadian Building Codes, Canadian construction practices, and the legal and regulatory framework of construction in Canada. Training in these areas should be accessible through a variety of channels. These channels could include: traditional university courses (both day courses and evening courses), distance learning courses (especially using the Web), and, where practical, office-based delivery of courses.

9. There is a need for courses that are customized to the needs of IAGs.

Universities generally do not have the resources to deliver courses that are customized to the needs of IAGs. While standard university courses may address many of the needs of IAGs, these courses are designed for individuals on the path to joining the profession. For the most part, university courses are not designed for persons who already have a significant personal history of professional practice and whose needs are focused on those aspects of Canadian architectural practice that differ from that with which they are familiar. For some IAGs, traditional classroom-based instruction, especially if offered during regular working hours, may be impractical, in light of other obligations. There is also a need for more flexible methods of delivering required professional training. In the preliminary survey results, approximately 40% of IAG respondents reported that fitting time to take courses was either ‘very challenging’ or ‘impossible’.



10. There is a need for comprehensive information on what is involved in qualifying in the Canadian architectural profession to be provided to IAGs while they are still in their country of origin and thereby more readily can obtain the documentation that will be required for their professional qualification in Canada.

Preliminary survey data suggest that approximately 47% of IAGs obtained some information on the Canadian architectural profession prior to emigrating to Canada. Some IAGs may have obtained information from the websites of the CACB or the provincial associations/institutes/ordre. Others may have obtained more basic information on the profession from other websites. The profession needs to improve the information resources that are available through immigration officers in Canadian embassies and consulates and also needs to explore a single portal website to disseminate information on professional licensure in Canada and on the scope of professional practice in Canada.

11. There is a significant difference between the expectations that the point-based immigration system fosters among IAGs and the regulatory and economic realities of the Canadian architectural labour market.

Changes to Canadian immigration policy in the mid-1980s increased the weight assigned to university education and professional qualifications. Immigration applicants understandably interpret the weight assigned to these factors as indicative of conditions in the labour market in which they will be seeking employment in their profession. However, the regulatory and economic realities are more complex. The expectations that are implicitly encouraged by the points awarded for university education and professional qualifications are often not borne out by subsequent experience. Indeed, many IAGs are surprised by the procedures and requirements for professional qualification, especially if they did not obtain information on these procedures and requirements before emigrating to Canada.

12. For many IAGs, language problems add significantly to the challenges of being professionally licensed in Canada.

While IAGs understand the need to be proficient in English or French, some may not understand the degree of proficiency that is expected. For some IAGs, language deficiencies may also hinder their understanding of the procedures required to be licensed in Canada.

13. In some provinces, there is scope for administrative designations that can assist IAGs and also

encourage them to pursue the path of professional licensure.



A number of options are potentially open to provincial associations/institutes/ordre to create special designations in addition to that of a licensed architect.

a. Establishing architectural technologist designations may be feasible in some provinces. However, there are differences in the way that technologist occupations are regulated across provinces which may make this approach impractical in some provinces.

b. Special permits may be issued which provide for a reduced scope of practice or require oversight by a licensed architect. This procedure has been adopted in Quebec.

c. Separating the right to title from the right to practice could address the need for professional recognition. However, this approach may also risk creating confusion in the public (and among clients) over the meaning of licensure and title.

14. IAGs need counsellors who understand the architectural profession, the industry and the procedures for obtaining professional licensure.

Many IAGs are able to obtain advice on professional licensure from colleagues in their place of work. However, preliminary survey results indicate that for about 27% of IAGs, getting advice from someone who knows the architectural profession and the industry was either ‘very challenging’ or ‘impossible.’ The OAA is currently managing a pilot program to provide recently arrived IAGs with professional counselling. There is general agreement that if the results of this project and other similar initiatives show value, the profession should explore ways of expanding this type of support.

15. The Canadian regulatory bodies need to review the scope of practice and the licensing standards in

other countries and determine their degree of commensurability with the scope of practice in Canada and Canadian licensing standards.

A rigorous comparison of the scope of practice and licensing standards in other jurisdictions will enable regulatory bodies in Canada to expeditiously establish the areas in which an IAG may be deficient. This would circumvent the need for previously licensed and broadly experienced IAGs to document their competence in all areas of professional practice. Reciprocity agreements, such as the Washington Accord for the Engineering profession, or a system of mutual recognition agreements for educational qualifications would be useful. However, these agreements are likely to take too long to negotiate. Canadian needs would be more efficiently served by unilaterally reviewing the scope of practice and licensing standards in other jurisdictions.



Possible Future Directions: 1. There could be two channels to certification by the CACB – an ‘educational qualification’ channel

and a ‘professional experience’ channel.

The first channel would be the ‘educational qualification’ channel. This channel would operate as it currently does. That is to say, educational qualifications would be assessed against the Canadian standard. IAGs would be required to supply documentation sufficient to demonstrate commensurability with Canadian standards. The CACB would advise applicants on deficiencies, as it does now. The CACB would continue to issue ‘provisional certifications’, pending completion of courses in Area 6.

The second channel would be the ‘professional experience’ channel. Access to this channel would be restricted to those who (a) were licensed as professional architects outside of Canada, and (b) had a minimum number of years of professional experience as a licensed architect outside of Canada. The minimum number of years of professional experience could be a common standard or could vary, depending on the country.

Based on a comparison of the scope of practice and licensing standards in the applicant’s former jurisdiction, the regulators would advise the applicant of additional training requirements to be registered in Canada. Applicants would only need to provide evidence of a university degree in architecture. At the provincial level, regulators would adjust their experience requirements to reflect the minimum additional Canadian experience required for licensure.

Adopting this approach should significantly expedite the certification and registration process for a large number of IAGs.

IAGs who were not licensed outside of Canada (or who were licensed, but lacked the requisite years of professional experience) would follow the traditional certification channel. This would put these IAGs on the same footing as Canadian graduates who are similarly no licensed and have only limited experience in the practice of architecture.

To implement this approach would require significant resources to develop and apply a standard procedure for reviewing the scope of practice and licensing standards in other countries.

2. The provincial associations/institutes/ordre could explore the feasibility of instituting a structured system of providing counsellors to recently arrived IAGs.

Recent experience with pilot projects suggests that the ratio of counsellors to IAGs should be somewhere between 1:6 and 1:12. Taking the most recent three years immigration data as a reference, this implies a need for somewhere between 85 and 175 counsellors across Canada, although these would need to be concentrated in the provinces which receive the preponderance of IAGs. Intermediate steps, involving fewer counsellors, would be appropriate until an effective model is developed. These intermediate steps would still make a significant contribution to



improving IAGs’ understanding of the Canadian regulatory system and the Canadian architectural industry.

3. A standard information package should be developed describing how to become an architect in Canada. This information package should be made available to IAGs prior to their emigration to Canada.

The information package on ‘how to become and architect in Canada’ should be reasonably detailed and realistic. The package should describe not only the regulatory procedures, but also the scope of practice of architecture in Canada and how that scope may differ from what IAGs are familiar with. The information package should also provide a profile of the architectural industry and profession in Canada. The information package should be made available to IAGs through Canadian immigration officers, as well as through inquiries to the CACB, RAIC, and provincial associations/institutes/ordre. Providing this information package would significantly assist in addressing the erroneous or incomplete expectations that may arise prior to emigrating to Canada.

4. A single portal web site should be developed which provides complete information on the architectural profession with links to CACB, RAIC, accredited university schools of architecture, and provincial associations/institutes/ordre.

Preliminary survey data indicate that over 85% of IAGs consulted websites of the CACB, RAIC, university schools of architecture or provincial associations/institutes/ordre. These web sites provide extensive information on the architectural profession in Canada, although about 25% of IAGs who consulted these sites reported the information provided as insufficient to meet their needs. These current web resources need to be reviewed for completeness, tested with IAGs, and then the information needs to be consolidated at a single portal. This would not replace existing information resources, but would ensure that all information is available at or through one portal.

5. The RAIC, CACB and provincial associations/institutes/ordre should develop training courses for IAGs that reflect the specific needs and professional background of IAGs and are delivered through a variety of channels, which could include traditional classroom instruction, (day, evening or weekend), distance learning, and ‘certified training offices’. Addressing this need could be undertaken in conjunction with renewal of the RAIC Syllabus program.

Most previously licensed and experienced IAGs require additional training in Canadian building codes, the legal and regulatory framework of construction and architecture in Canada, professional practice and ethics, and Canadian construction practices and construction procurement methods. Most of this material is covered in Area 6 (Professional Practice). It may be cost-effective to develop training materials for broadly-experienced, foreign-trained architects concurrent with the renewal of the RAIC Syllabus program. Significant attention needs to be directed to developing alternative and flexible channels for delivering this training, especially utilizing distance learning.



Consideration could also be given to delivering training in architectural offices, where this is feasible.



Appendix IV

Surveys

1. Architectural Practices Survey (English and French)

2. Public Sector Employer Survey (English and French)

3. IAG Survey (English and French)



Architectural Practices Survey

(English and French)



Public Sector Employer Survey




IAG Survey


Integration and Licensure of Internationally Trained ... And Licensure Of... · Integration and...

Documents

Transcript of Integration and Licensure of Internationally Trained ... And Licensure Of... · Integration and...