BC fast-tracks permits with certified reports

Summary#

This bill would change how local governments in British Columbia review and approve development projects. It leans more on certified work from licensed professionals (such as engineers or biologists) to speed up approvals and cut costs.

• Local governments must accept technical reports that are certified by a licensed professional, unless the report is incomplete or under a formal complaint.
• Disputes between a city’s professional and an applicant’s professional go to a provincial official (the superintendent) for a decision.
• Cities cannot require a second opinion (peer review) on a certified report unless the superintendent allows it.
• The professional who certifies the report is legally responsible for harm caused by relying on it; local governments are protected from damage claims about those certified reports.
• Cities keep control over zoning, development permit areas, and community plans. Provincial building codes are not changed.
• The Province can set application timelines and dispute rules by regulation.

What it means for you#

• Applicants and developers

  • You can submit certified technical reports from licensed professionals. The city must accept them if complete and not under complaint.
  • You may face fewer peer review requirements, which can lower costs and shorten timelines.
  • You will still need to hire qualified professionals. Their certification carries legal responsibility if something goes wrong.

• Residents and communities

  • Projects may move faster because cities rely more on certified expert reports and less on in‑house review.
  • Cities still decide where and what can be built through zoning, development permits, and community plans.
  • If a certified report is wrong and causes harm, lawsuits would target the professional, not the city.

• Licensed professionals (regulated under the Professional Governance Act)

  • You may see more demand for certifications on development files.
  • Your legal exposure increases. You are liable for damages caused by reliance on your certification, so insurance and practice standards matter.
  • Disputes with municipal staff can be escalated to the superintendent.

• Local governments

  • You must accept certified submissions unless incomplete or under complaint.
  • You cannot require peer reviews of certified reports without the superintendent’s approval.
  • You face less legal risk for damages tied to certified submissions.
  • You keep your planning powers (zoning, permits, community plans) and must still follow provincial building codes.

Expenses#

Overall fiscal impact: likely small for the Province; could reduce municipal processing costs and shift more cost and liability to private professionals.

• Provincial costs may include more work for the superintendent (dispute resolution, authorizing peer reviews) and setting timelines by regulation.
• Municipalities may save staff time and peer review costs, but will need to adjust internal processes.
• Professionals may face higher insurance and compliance costs, which could be passed on to applicants.
• No publicly available information on official cost estimates.

Proponents' View#

• It speeds up approvals by trusting licensed experts and cutting duplicate reviews.
• It reduces “red tape” and makes costs more predictable for builders, which could help deliver housing and other projects faster.
• Clear liability rules place responsibility on the certifying professional, improving accountability.
• Local governments keep control over land use decisions, while technical checks are handled by qualified professionals.
• It protects taxpayers by reducing lawsuits against cities tied to expert reports.

Opponents' View#

• It weakens municipal oversight and may limit a city’s ability to question or double‑check a developer’s expert.
• Professionals hired by applicants could face conflicts of interest, raising risks to public safety, the environment, or neighborhood fit.
• Blocking peer reviews unless approved by the superintendent may let errors slip through.
• Shifting legal liability to professionals could leave residents with fewer paths to hold governments accountable if harm occurs.
• The superintendent could become a bottleneck in disputes, creating delays or centralizing too much control at the provincial level.