TLDR: There’s a private member’s bill from George Anderson (NDP MLA for Nanaimo-Lantzville), under which engineers or architects rather than municipal regulators would bear the responsibility for technical work, and the liability in case of problems.
BC has a geography of mountains, slopes, seismic risks, floodplains, dykes and other land conditions that require extra vigilance for builders - further intensified by climate change.
Many BC cities including Delta, Surrey, Chilliwack and Langley City, Nanaimo and other areas have already been meeting or exceeding their Housing Targets without this Bill - making this Bill unnecessary & even dangerous for housing safety standards. Oct 2025 Zonda Urban, tracking real estate data, said that there were 3,745 empty and unsold condos and townhomes in Metro Vancouver at the end of the third quarter. So do we really need more EMPTY UNAFFORDABLE CONDOS???
"So do we really need more EMPTY UNAFFORDABLE CONDOS???"
The answer is yes, absolutely. Unsold inventory putting downward pressure on prices and rents is bad news for developers, *but it's good news for first-time homebuyers and renters*. The sellers can't hold out indefinitely. Eventually they'll have to cut their prices, taking heavy losses, so that somebody will buy them. With a combination of record supply and weakening demand, asking rents in Metro Vancouver have been declining over the last couple years. But they're still high. To keep pushing down prices and rents, we need to keep building.
"BC has a geography of mountains, slopes, seismic risks, floodplains, dykes and other land conditions that require extra vigilance for builders - further intensified by climate change."
There's certainly risks. I think the question is, does it make sense for a professional engineer to assess these risks, and to bear responsibility if something goes wrong, or for municipal staff to do so?
Re: does it make sense for a professional engineer to assess these risks, and to bear responsibility if something goes wrong, or for municipal staff to do so?
MLA Anderson might argue that he is simplifying procedures or “cutting red tape.” But regulation, especially of professions that shape the physical and environmental landscape of the province, exists for a reason. Simplification in this context is not neutral, it is an act of selective amnesia. The result is not modernisation but regression, a kind of bureaucratic entropy where lessons unlearned resurface as policy. https://crdwatch.ca/2025/11/29/trust-but-deregulate-the-professional-reliance-acts-return-to-faith-based-governance-by-arthur-mcinnis/
BC has a geography of mountains, slopes, seismic risks, floodplains, dykes and other land conditions that require extra vigilance for builders - further intensified by climate change.
Many BC cities including Delta, Surrey, Chilliwack and Langley City, Nanaimo and other areas have already been meeting or exceeding their Housing Targets without this Bill - making this Bill unnecessary & even dangerous for housing safety standards. Oct 2025 Zonda Urban, tracking real estate data, said that there were 3,745 empty and unsold condos and townhomes in Metro Vancouver at the end of the third quarter. So do we really need more EMPTY UNAFFORDABLE CONDOS???
"So do we really need more EMPTY UNAFFORDABLE CONDOS???"
The answer is yes, absolutely. Unsold inventory putting downward pressure on prices and rents is bad news for developers, *but it's good news for first-time homebuyers and renters*. The sellers can't hold out indefinitely. Eventually they'll have to cut their prices, taking heavy losses, so that somebody will buy them. With a combination of record supply and weakening demand, asking rents in Metro Vancouver have been declining over the last couple years. But they're still high. To keep pushing down prices and rents, we need to keep building.
"BC has a geography of mountains, slopes, seismic risks, floodplains, dykes and other land conditions that require extra vigilance for builders - further intensified by climate change."
There's certainly risks. I think the question is, does it make sense for a professional engineer to assess these risks, and to bear responsibility if something goes wrong, or for municipal staff to do so?
Re: does it make sense for a professional engineer to assess these risks, and to bear responsibility if something goes wrong, or for municipal staff to do so?
SAFETY SHOULD BE PARAMOUNT! WE NEED BOTH TO ASSESS - that's what PEER REVIEW is & what the proposed Bill would eliminate. And locals know their community better than a Victoria based engineer. https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2025/12/02/safety-vs-bc-bill-m216-professional-reliance-act-yaworski/
MLA Anderson might argue that he is simplifying procedures or “cutting red tape.” But regulation, especially of professions that shape the physical and environmental landscape of the province, exists for a reason. Simplification in this context is not neutral, it is an act of selective amnesia. The result is not modernisation but regression, a kind of bureaucratic entropy where lessons unlearned resurface as policy. https://crdwatch.ca/2025/11/29/trust-but-deregulate-the-professional-reliance-acts-return-to-faith-based-governance-by-arthur-mcinnis/