Royal Architecture Institute of Canada needs to better advocate for design, culture, and the future of our profession
Architecture is political. This has been said many times, and it remains true. Architects, of course, believe that what we do matters. But when talking to politicians, it is often hard to convey not only what we do, but why it matters. This is never more relevant than during an election campaign.
Two recent elections have shown the relevance of having a strong public voice for architecture. Each country’s own election experience, and the role of their national architectural advocacy body, shows how and why architecture matters and, importantly, why strong advocacy for the profession is critical.
Australia kicked off a federal election on March 28, 2025, with voting held on May 3. Canada did the same, with an election called on March 23 and votes counted on April 28. Both countries were—and are—facing similar challenges in housing, climate change, and social infrastructure. Similarly, both countries have colonial histories and are struggling with the legacy of violence towards Indigenous people. Both countries are part of the Commonwealth and have similar approaches to governance and ideas about society.
While Australia’s NSW Design for Heritage Guide provides a built environment policy with excellent resources to guide decision making and land-use, especially with respect to Aboriginal people, Canada lacks such a strong national architecture policy. Despite more than ten years of work and advocacy by members of the profession, this seems to not be a priority for either our politicians or the Royal Architecture Institute of Canada (RAIC), which bills itself as “the only national voice for excellence in the built environment in Canada.”
Over In Australia
In March, ahead of the country’s national election, the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA) issued a well-crafted, 18-page briefing paper outlining key priorities. This paper was in the hands of its members for the duration of the election period and articulated clear language to help guide conversations on the role Australian architects can play in Australia’s future.
The paper opened with five strong calls to action, giving candidates, and members, quick access to key points:
- Establishing a Federal Government Architect within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts.
- Embracing Innovation and modern construction methods to address housing shortages while supporting the transition to net zero.
- Deliver healthy, equitable, affordable and sustainable housing that strengthens community connections.
- Strengthen building codes and supports an orderly decarbonization transition through the National Construction Code and the Australian Building Codes Board
- Use architects and other licensed professionals to improve urban outcomes, safety and consumer confidence.
This made it easy for politicians and news media to quickly get the point of the AIA’s advocacy message. It was easy to understand the AIA’s position and calls to action with clear language and identifiable talking points.
Over the rest of the handout, beautifully illustrated with photographs of high-quality Australian architecture, the AIA made a case for why architecture matters. The document identified a clear public interest position for members to use in their interactions with candidates. Key priorities for government were laid out with talking points and references.
Readers came away with solid understanding of the AIA’s position and leadership role. There was no partisan position taken in this publication; the AIA was clearly advocating first and foremost for the public good, to create better places for people.
Back In Canada
In contrast with the AIA in Australia, in Canada, the RAIC created a website page with some suggested questions and a link to a letter template sent to political party leaders. No responses or follow-up was published, so members have no idea if the letters were received or what response was generated. This webpage was released on April 10, halfway through the election period. RAIC members have no idea if this was sent to candidates on or before April 10.
In addition, there are no handouts or easy-to-email PDFs to send to candidates. The RAIC’s letter is not suitable to send to candidates running for local seats unless members want to customize it for that use. A list of eight questions were articulated (and misnumbered on the letter), but with no coherent reference to why these items should matter to the public. Nor was there a clear position put forward by the RAIC on the issues raised by these questions.
Candidates were asked to send their responses to the RAIC’s Chief Commercial Officer. (A relatively new role with the RAIC, this individual is tasked with overseeing the commercial activities of a business, with a primary focus on revenue generation and profitability). We have no idea how many responses were received or what position candidates took. We don’t know if there was any engagement: Were there any written responses? Are they published somewhere?
Members were asked to consider writing op-eds or to make themselves available to the media, though it wasn’t entirely clear whether this was to be as spokespersons for the RAIC or as representatives of their own firms. It is empowering to see the RAIC encouraging members to speak up for themselves,—“to be a go-to person if they [the media] have questions about the built environment,” as mentioned in the RAIC Votes 2025 webpage—but this could lead to confusion: Are all members now de facto spokespersons for architecture in Canada? Are we all expected to articulate the RAIC position or to formulate our own and could that be misconstrued as the RAIC’s position? What if my position on an issue is contrary to the RAIC’s?
As a result, the opportunity for confusion and mixed messages was significant.
The RAIC website identifies that sustainable housing and affordability are important, especially considering the housing crisis. While the question “How will your party support the rapid scaling of housing supply[?]” is relevant, no narrative was offered explaining how architects were expected to be part of the solution, nor what role other professions might play: How will planning reform, technological advancements in mass timber or prefabrication, or office-residential conversions help address the crisis? And what role will architects have in advancing Canadian solutions?
The same is true for issues around climate resilience. Instead of waiting for someone to say what role they imagine for us, we should be advocating for the role we want to play.
The RAIC’s questions also spoke about the need for procurement reform and the use of Quality-Based Selection (QBS). This has been a supposed long-standing priority of the RAIC; many members would likely love to see this implemented. However, there was no clear discussion of what QBS is, nor why this should be a government priority. There was also no discussion of the complexities of procurement reform, nor the nuances of QBS, which many organizations think they already deliver—but in actuality, they don’t. There was also no reflection on the RAIC’s own position in supporting the profession who in the past has sought such support and been met with resounding silence.
In short, the AIA made a clear case for why architecture should matter. The RAIC’s position was confusing, lacked actionable talking points, and failed to resonate with the public. That’s unfortunate, especially given the wealth of information that the RAIC has at its disposal.
The Future of Architecture
Many of the AIA’s positions are similar to calls to action that the Future of Architecture committee developed working as a committee of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authority (CALA), which is now ROAC, the Regulatory Organizations for Architecture in Canada.
The Future of Architecture committee’s findings, summarized in a 310-page document, included an action list for the profession, government, and other organizations. The 11 calls to action for governments at all levels, could have formed the basis of a position paper and could have been used, with minor adjustments, for RAIC members across the country, in municipal, provincial, territorial, and federal elections. The RAIC, who were involved in these meetings and a participant in the development of this paper, could easily have crafted a ready-to-go election paper well in advance of the federal election.
In my view, this was a missed opportunity and reflects a siloed RAIC that appears uninterested in supporting the actions and research members have done to advance a collaborative policy position with national consensus.
Lobbying for Change
Despite being a registered lobbyist, the RAIC’s last registered communication with the federal government was more than three years ago. In 2024, there were four public statements made (regarding, among other things). Since 2023, there have been , a public park in Toronto that has been destroyed to make way for a private spa, but no statements on the long-suffering saga of 24 Sussex, the home of the Prime Minister of Canada that has been vacant and decrepit for more than a decade. Some of the RAIC’s published statements request meetings with federal or provincial officials but there is no record of what meeting occurred, nor of a result. Members have no idea if meetings occur or if the RAIC is being ignored.
By contrast, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), between January and April 2025, had 16 published events showing where the RIBA has interacted with the UK federal government. The American Institute of Architects has a clear set of priorities for federal engagement and advocates for Design Freedom; Tax Relief; Housing; Climate and Resiliency; and Federal Design Fee Limitations.
The American AIA held a and 2025, focused on the political landscape and understanding of legislative decisions with a full day dedicated to meetings with elected officials. Each AIA State Chapter had appointments with their representatives to address legislation slated for Congress that affected the practice of architecture.
As Brian Wall wrote in the June 2024 issue of Canadian Architect, “it became evident that the AIA Canada Society needs to engage more deeply with our political landscape.” While it’s gratifying that the AIA Canada Chapter is doing this work, I have to wonder what politicians will think when they see members of the AIA Canadian chapter being more engaged, more involved, in Canadian legislation than the RAIC. In this same article on advocacy, Wall made it clear that the AIA Canada Chapter is “.”
Is the RAIC committed to the same?
What Canadian Architects Need
Canadian architects need an organization that can engage politicians and senior governmental officials—not just during elections, but on an ongoing basis. We need senior personnel within our advocacy organizations to speak with the authority and professional credentials of experienced architects who can address the key issues affecting architects. We need a vibrant organization that can speak to the value of architecture, its role in our economy and our society. We need an advocacy voice that can make the case for design, culture, and the future of our profession.
This is especially critical today, when there is a rising patriotism and renewed calls for “made in Canada” solutions, driven by current events in the U.S. and its threats of tariffs and take-over. When coupled with the ongoing challenges of a housing crisis, climate change, and challenges to our social infrastructure, there is an opportunity for Canadian architects to advocate for our role in making a better Canada.
Yes, individual Canadian architects can write editorials, meet with politicians, and design places that show how Canada can advance. But without a collective voice to speak for us, we will not be heard.
To do this, we need a powerful, respected, advocacy campaign that speaks through proper lobbying channels and a coherent national structure with clear, articulate priorities in the service of convincing politicians and the public that architecture matters. We should be proclaiming that architecture, and architects, are key leaders in further advancing Canadian success at home and on the world stage.
While the federal election is now over, the need for political engagement is not. We need an advocacy voice that speaks loudly about the role architecture plays in society. We need to show that architecture is relevant to politicians and the public as an agent for positive social and environmental change. We need a strong RAIC to advocate for architects and architecture and to create the Canada we aspire to be. And if the RAIC of today isn’t up to the task, we need to reinvent it—or create a new organization that is.
Originally published in The Architect’s Newspaper.