Rush to Misjudgment

CC #168—Private member's Bill M216 is being rushed through the legislature—if passed as is, it will forever change planning in BC—and not for the good

It took me two days to actually get to where I could comment on Bill M216, whose public “consultation” ends December 2nd, seven working days from today and two days before the Legislature adjourns for the holiday season. In the time available I can only publish what I found on the BC Government consultation website.

“The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills is seeking public input on Bill M 216, Professional Reliance Act.

The text of the bill, introduction in the Legislative Assembly, and second reading debate (October 27 and November 17) may assist you in preparing your written comments.

Instructions

Please provide your comments by filling out this submission form. Please complete all applicable sections of the form and click “submit” to ensure your form is submitted.

When you registered your account in this system and filled out the information for your profile, you provided a name and indicated affiliation with an organization (if applicable). The input that you provide will be attributed to that name and organization. Please ensure that the name and organization information is correct in the account profile.

Please prioritize your suggested changes to the bill. You are provided space to recommend two changes to the bill. If you have additional changes you would like to suggest, there is a space at the end of the form to briefly describe them.

Please ensure that your input is captured within the body of the submission. No additional information or documents, including information provided through links, will be considered.

If you require assistance or support to make a submission, please contact the Parliamentary Committees Office at 250-356-2933 or 1-877-428-8337 (toll-free in BC).

Please note, submissions are considered public documents and may be posted on the Committee’s website. Please do not include any personal information within the body of your submission. The Parliamentary Committees Office will remove an individual’s personal contact information prior to posting or disclosing any submissions.”

After that introduction, the website questions (in italics) and my answers (in bullet form):

Please provide any general background information relevant to your submission (e.g., the work of your organization or relevant personal experience).

• I am: a Vancouver-based architect of 50 years experience (Architect AIBC); BC’s first accredited building envelope professional (BEP); one of BC’s first Certified Professionals (CP); & a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP, the first green building system). My CP experience is probably most relevant to this proposed legislation. I am the author of “An Architect’s Guide to Construction,” the standard construction administration text for architects in BC. I have developed quality management systems for complex design & construction projects such as the $2 billion Calgary airport expansion.

• (Note to readers: I delineated my qualifications to comment, not to impress, just so I might be more likely to be heard.)

Why do you generally support or oppose the bill, as applicable?

• I oppose this bill for these reasons:

  • CPs are not PGA Professionals, which they seem to be confused with here—CPs such as I have building code expertise but NOT all of architectural design, engineering and planning expertise;

  • no regulations accompany the Bill;

  • the appeal mechanism is to a Superintendent who is neither an architect (AIBC), engineer (EGBC) or Registered Professional Planner (RPP);

  • the referenced Professional Governance Act does not include Planners in its scope, therefore anybody can hold themselves out as having planning qualifications, which are essential to the Bill’s operations, as municipalities must accept or appeal “any submission certified by a PGA professional acting within their regulated scope of practice”—there is no regulated scope of practice for planning;

  • municipal opportunity for peer review is removed—municipalities regularly find errors or omissions in professional submissions, including by CPs—municipalities no longer have the authority to conduct such reviews;

  • peer review is a fundamental aspect of all credible quality management systems, here has been eliminated;

  • in jurisdictions such as Australia where similar schemes have been tried, all professionals have faced significant insurance cost increases and liability limitations;

  • finally, while AIBC and EGBC, which come under the Professional Governance Act, appear to have been asked for input, their members have not.

First suggested amendment:

• Change the timing—reintroduce an amended Bill after much more extensive public and professional consultation.

Explanation for first suggested change:

• Professional and municipal members of the CP Program Advisory Committee were unaware this legislation had been introduced, let alone received 2nd reading.

Second suggested change to the bill (if any):

• Include Regulations with the Bill.

Explanation for second suggested change:

• At the moment there are no regulations governing, for example: what aspects of an appeal the Superintendent must consider before deciding an appeal; what external or internal parties the Superintendent may/may not consult with as part of their review; in the absence of Planning as a profession regulated by the Professional Governance Act, how the planning aspects of a submission that is appealed will be evaluated.

If provided the opportunity, are you interested in presenting to the Committee?

• Yes

---

This post is just over 800 words. I urge you to register your own comments (so far 800 citizens have signed up) at https://consultation-portal.leg.bc.ca/consultations/154. If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. City Conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he is threatening to write a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places where we love to live. Some of its content may appear above.