More than a dozen B.C. professional associations are concerned that a bill proposing to change the way cities review developments will remove safeguards that uphold public safety.

But NDP MLA George Anderson is defending his private member’s bill, the Professional Reliance Act, which he said aims to reduce delays in the housing approval process that can involve “significant duplication of technical review.”

Nearly 500 organizations, local governments and individuals submitted public feedback on the bill. Many were opposed — some were scathing.

“I cannot formulate a sentence that meets my personal and professional standards for communication, that is capable of expressing the depths of my opposition to this ill-conceived, uninformed, dangerous, and costly bill,” said Tate Bengtson, the chief administrative officer of the North Okanagan city of Enderby.

Bengtson’s suggestion: “Cast this bill into the dustbin of history so that it may serve as a footnote of embarrassment rather than a chapter of tragedy.”

What is the Professional Reliance Act?

The bill as drafted would mean a local government must accept any technical submission certified by a professional registered under the Professional Governance Act (PGA) for a development project approval process — unless the submission is incomplete or a complaint is made.

Professional engineers, geoscientists and architects, among other professions, fall under the PGA.

A local government would also not be allowed to peer review a submission certified by a PGA professional.

B.C. municipalities currently review the work of professionals submitted by developers as part of approving new housing. That includes checking for compliance with the B.C. Building Code and legislation around stream protections and wildlife.

The District of Sechelt’s chief building official offered examples of mistakes caught by review before being built, including a six-storey apartment without accessible ramps or lifts, a parkade proposed “without a mechanical ventilation system to remove vehicle exhaust and carbon monoxide” and missing fire separations.

The bill has drawn concerns from a variety of professional bodies, ranging from architects and engineers, to firefighters, environmentalist groups and building code officials.

The B.C. Ministry of Housing, run by Anderson’s NDP party, also reiterated industry concerns and suggested the bill appears to have “implications that could extend further than intended.”

The B.C. Professional Fire Fighter’s Association said the bill “has the potential to jeopardize public safety” by removing technical checks on critical building systems.

And the Planning Institute of B.C., which represents professional planners, said the bill as proposed is “critically flawed” and would likely increase the cost and time for new developments.

In the last decade of appeal decisions, when a local government’s qualified building official questioned a PGA professional’s opinion on B.C. Building Code compliance, the PGA professional was incorrect 49 per cent of the time, according to the Building Code Appeal Board.

Support from housing, development groups

Anderson said at the committee meeting March 4 the bill would not change the rules for what can be built and that municipal zoning bylaws would remain unchanged.

“The bill aims to strike a balance,” he said.

“It recognizes the expertise of regulated professionals, it maintains municipal planning authority, and it reduces unnecessary duplication that can slow the approval of projects that already meet the rules.”

He also recommended a number of amendments to the bill, which must be voted on by committee members.

Anderson noted his bill has support from development and pro-housing groups.

The Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Board of Trade said in a November letter that the proposal would reduce lengthy approval timelines that delay projects and drive up costs.

One Ladysmith-based developer said he experienced a planner “question [the company’s] engineers’ work 13 times, all over things I considered superfluous,” ultimately costing $250,000 in delays and expenses.

Engineers, architects concerned

But some of the most directly affected groups — the six regulatory bodies governed by the Professional Governance Act — advocated pausing the bill.

They said the bill as drafted does not properly account for the complexities within development permitting across the province and could make registered professionals vulnerable to increased liability.

The professional regulators said a more comprehensive review to address the root of permit delays would be a better way to accelerate housing development.

Cities, regional districts opposed

Local governments across the province have been vehemently opposed.

The Cariboo Regional District put the responsibility of slow development approvals back on developers.

“The fastest way to accelerate development approvals is simple: Submit a complete, code-compliant application,” the district said.

The City of Duncan said the legislation incorrectly assumes that professionals do not make mistakes and that technical submissions always comply with local regulations. 

“This is patently false.”

Next steps

The bill narrowly escaped being shut down at the committee stage Wednesday in a 4-3 vote.

Some committee members said the bill has merits but likely cannot be salvaged as is, while others said it would be worth hearing from affected groups.

The committee is planning to invite groups to speak on the bill. 

The committee must report back on the bill to the House by May 6. MLAs will eventually vote on the bill again as part of the approvals process.