Bill M216 Professional Reliance Act continues to move forward, despite the significant risks it would pose for public safety and liability issues. After passing second reading with unanimous NDP support, the Bill is now being considered at the Committee stage, where earlier today the NDP chair cast the deciding vote to defeat a Conservative motion that would have set the bill set aside.
“The continued NDP support for a private member bill that compromises the safety of British Columbians and poses significant liability risks is concerning. Having a government member bring forward housing legislation without the input of the Minister responsible for housing or the public service is a sign of a distracted government that has lost its focus on the public interest,” said UBCM President Cori Ramsay. “I think it is time for Minister Boyle to tell British Columbians whether she supports Bill M216.”
A flawed legislative process
UBCM has learned from provincial officials that Bill M216 was developed without technical input from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Yet if the legislation becomes law, Minister Christine Boyle will be responsible for its oversight. This raises an important question: if the bill has genuine merit, why is the Minister responsible for housing not bringing it forward on behalf of the government and undertaking the appropriate degree of engagement required for such significant legislation?
More than 70 local governments made submissions to the Committee to demonstrate the public benefit that review processes provide in protecting public safety. They highlighted numerous examples of errors that such reviews routinely uncover in technical submissions, including those signed off on by professionals that would no longer be subject to review under Bill M216.
Examples of significant deficiencies in submissions received by local governments include:
- Post-construction compliance reports submitted for buildings that were not yet built,
- Plans that failed to meet minimum code requirements or omitted critical life‑safety features, and
- Designs that led to cracked and sloughed shoring walls, occupancy of buildings with unfinished building envelopes and completion of large apartment buildings without required fire hydrants.
Local governments are not unique in their opposition to Bill M216. As noted by MLA Gavin Dew during the committee’s deliberations, of the 484 submissions received, 88% were opposed.
Complex development conditions require peer review
Local governments also noted the complex development conditions that are typical in BC communities, such steep slopes, bluff areas, wildfire and riparian areas, seismic risk and tsunami zones, and coastal floodplains. These conditions require rigorous, locally informed reviews of geotechnical and drainage designs to avoid major public safety risks such as slope failures, erosion, and flooding. As noted by the Planning Institute of BC, “There are times when QEPs [Qualified Environmental Professionals] do not actually conduct site visits or review the development plans in detail, rendering their recommendations invalid as they are based on incomplete or inaccurate information.” Local government staff, by contrast, bring essential knowledge of on‑the‑ground conditions.
MLA Anderson dismissed such concerns during his presentation to the committee, commenting that:
“We’ve mentioned houses sliding into rivers and oceans and so on. That’s happening under this current system right now. It’s happening under this current system right now, so to state that things will get worse...? I have a lot of faith in our professionals.”
Proposed model comes with liability risk
MLA Anderson was similarly dismissive about increased liability risk qualified professionals would face under the regime he has proposed. As noted by the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance, “Increased professional practise risk could result in a chilling effect for professionals who may be concerned about whether adequate and affordable professional practise insurance will be available to them.”
The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies BC similarly cautioned that “many professionals currently engaged in the professional services necessary to design and deliver housing and other buildings could choose not to provide those services in BC or could be providing those services without adequate risk protections including insurance.” In addition, Bill M216 would expose homeowners to increased risk of unexpected costs, by limiting the ability for local governments to perform the necessary reviews.
M216 continues trend to undermine local democracy
As noted in the Globe and Mail, 30 housing practitioners, including the former NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs Darlene Marzari, have decried Bill M216 as rewriting the relationship between local democracy and development. “When certified professionals hired by developers are empowered to approve the very projects from which they earn their income, the integrity of the system collapses,” said the letter.
Because of its wide-ranging and significant defects, UBCM strongly encourages the Committee to recommend back to the House that Bill M216 not proceed.