Stop Bill M216 Before Local Democracy is Dismantled on Nov 17, 2025

Stop Bill M216 Before Local Democracy is Dismantled on Nov 17, 2025

Critics have begun panning the Bill as the ‘Local Government Capture Bill’.

The Bill’s main proponent appears to be a US-based YIMBY organization purporting to be a movement, that appears flush with sponsorship money, potential hallmarks of political astroturfing and foreign interference in Canadian affairs.

By Sasha Izard,
with contributions from Vancouver CityHallWatch
Nov 11, 2025

—————————————————————————————————

Here we go again… this time with a Bill, M216, whose name could easily be confused on first-glance for an American-made assault weapon… No, this isn’t a literal weapon, rather it’s a bill aimed at taking massive powers over local democracy in British Columbia.

Today is Remembrance day, and I’m feeling an awful lot of déjà vu, in a very nauseating sort of way. 2 years ago on this day in November, I wrote the following article:

How the Development and Real Estate Lobby Pressed Mandatory Housing Targets, Mass Upzoning, Captured Official Community Plans, and Made the Shutting Down of Public Hearings the Norm in British Columbia Under the NDP Government – CRD Watch Homepage

The article was about the Housing Bills 44-47 that were being pushed by the BC NDP that override local government sovereignty in a way that was clearly driven by the development lobby, since proven by massive Freedom of Information responses, but was clear to me even at that point. They were sadly passed at the end of that November in 2023, after the NDP-led Province forced them through without proper debate, by invoking closure, although the odious Bill 45 got thrown out in the process.

Now, lest we forget. the attack on local democracy continues full-fledged under the BC NDP, aka the New Developer Puppets, which have quickly grown old and stale unable to think beyond the narrow confines of what their developer masters instruct them to do, like public relations robots for an industry out of control, throwing out democracy at the full pace of the crisis capitalism they have sold themselves fully to,

while keeping the cranes running on the development industry’s preferred schedule, Casey Jones you better watch that speed…

————————————————————————————————–

Stop Bill M216 Before Local Democracy is Dismantled on Nov 17

The British Columbia Legislature is set to resume debate for the second reading of Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act (a name just screaming of inevitable undue influence), on November 17—just days away. This technical-sounding private member’s bill, tabled by an NDP MLA George Anderson of Nanaimo-Lantzville, is effectively a coup in progress, that threatens the core of local governance.

Why is this not being tabled by the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs Christine Boyle? Speaking of crisis capitalism, her sister in-law is none other than Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, and that is exactly what this is.

Boyle’s husband is none other than supposed environmentalist Seth Klein. This bill if passed will ride roughshod over environmental protections, as has been pointed out by Green MLA Jeremy Valeriote in the BC Legislature on this issue. Why is Seth’s sister Naomi Klein and her husband Avi Lewis silent on on this? Avi is running at the moment to be the leader of the Federal NDP. The silence of the would-be NDP Klein dynasty on this is deafening.

Civic groups, planners, academics, opposition MLAs, big-city mayors, and even the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) are sounding the alarm, arguing that M216 is not about streamlining, but about replacing local accountability with a “provincially managed technocracy.” This legislation must be paused or defeated to protect local voices and public safety. After reading this, concerned groups and individuals are encouraged to contact their MLAs and let them know what they think.

Erosion of Local Democracy and Autonomy

Bill M216 continues a pattern of provincial overreach, following earlier laws like Bills 44 and 47 (2023), that centralizes planning power with the Provincial Government of BC. The bill effectively handcuffs municipalities by forcing them to accept submissions certified by provincially regulated professionals (“PGAs”).

Municipalities lose the critical ability to peer review or technically verify certified reports unless they file a formal dispute with a provincial authority.
The bill undermines municipal self-determination by granting the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to designate an alternative “local government” to handle approvals if an elected council is deemed “too slow or resistant”.
The legislation dismantles long-established local practices used to incentivize better urbanism, such as securing community amenity contributions (CACs), design panels, and affordable housing through locally negotiated zoning processes.
UBCM confirmed that they were not consulted on this legislation before its introduction, reinforcing concerns that systemic changes are being developed without meaningful local government input.

Accountability and Conflict of Interest Risks

The core mechanism of M216 institutionalizes risks to the public good by transferring oversight away from elected officials to private actors.

The model institutionalizes conflict of interest because certified professionals, hired and paid by developers, are empowered to approve the very projects from which they earn their income.
Professionals are not elected officials, yet their technical sign-off becomes the final word, meaning the public loses its fiduciary safeguards.
Previous high-profile disasters, such as Mount Polley and issues at Shawnigan Lake, demonstrate the severe pitfalls of overreliance on professional certification.
The bill risks leaving homeowners exposed to unacceptable long-term costs and legal battles if defects emerge after construction and the certifying professional has retired, or is otherwise unavailable, as the city may be shielded from liability.

Practical and Procedural Failures

Despite claims of efficiency, opponents warn the bill will create new bureaucracy and confusion.

The proposed system risks creating a major bottleneck by shifting complex disputes from local government to the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance (OSPG) in Victoria.
The OSPG currently has only about eight staff and is not slated for new additional funding, meaning the dispute resolution process lacks defined timelines and capacity to handle referrals from over 150 municipalities.
The law creates a confusing “patchwork system” by applying professional reliance only to certain disciplines (like engineers and architects), while excluding other vital professions such as Registered Professional Planners, surveyors, and environmental consultants.
The bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, which suggests a deliberate attempt to avoid the robust scrutiny and public debate normally associated with substantial policy legislation presented by a Minister.

BC Legislature Committee Debate on Oct 27 (partial 2^nd reading)

The committee debate on October 27, which was adjourned until November 17, is filled with excellent examples of the problems with Bill M216 and well worth a read. See the transcript in The Hansard, starting at 11:15 a.m., where MLA George Anderson starts the discussion (link). Of particular interest are statements by BC Conservative Tony Luck (Fraser-Nicola), the Official Opposition Critic for Municipal Affairs and Local Government, Jeremy Valeriote (West Vancouver-Sea to Sky) of the BC Greens, and Sheldon Clare (Prince George-North Cariboo), with the BC Conservatives.

—————————————————————————————————

Murky Origins of Bill M216

What are the origins of Bill M216 and why was it presented as a member’s bill instead of by a minister, as would normally be the case? George Anderson was first elected to the BC Legislature in 2024. Is this bill something his constituents were asking for? Nothing in any public statements by Anderson give any hints.

But a blog post by a group named Beautiful Nanaimo aka “Strong Towns Nanaimo”, entitled “MLA George Anderson Wants To Build Better, Faster: Bill M 216” may provide some hints. The information about the group itself is murky. All the principal members go only by first name and initial. Some of them appear to be associated with the real estate and development industry.

———————————————————————————————–

Bridging the Gap Between Lobby, Universities and State.

Many of the Strong Town Nanaimo members according to their profiles, are associated with Vancouver Island University (VIU) in Nanaimo. Mark Holland a top UDI educator and development consultant which considers Oak tree root balls to be one of his greatest frustrations in life, has been teaching community planning at VIU. Mark Holland, B.LA MSc. FCIP LEED™ | Community Planning | Vancouver Island University | Canada Have any of the Strong Town Nanaimo members studied under Holland’s program? Certainly their focuses overlap.

One of the Strong Town Nanaimo members goes by the name Danny H.
He claims in his Strong Towns profile to be an RDN (Regional District of Nanaimo?) representative, who works with interest groups. Danny uses the term “bridge the gap”.

“Bridging the gap” is a term used by the registered lobbying organization the Urban Development Institute (UDI) for its annual meetings at the buildings of its member companies, where it wines and dines students of the UVic real estate club. The UDI has also advertised to its member companies in its Policy and Advocacy updates newsletter that they can connect with the students of the club for their public hearings.

See: UDI (registered lobbying organization) Newsletter from March 2023 Advertised “connecting with the University of Victoria Real Estate Club for your next public hearing” – CRD Watch Homepage

Above: Member profile for Danny – Strong Towns Nanaimo (Accessed Nov 12, 2025)

A video of a UVicRealEstate Club event at this venue in a previous year, featured former Mayor of Victoria Lisa Helps, and former UDI President Robert Jawl, and footage of students being poured bubbly wine.

Bridging the Gap (Industry) · Luma (Accessed: Nov 12, 2025

————————————————————————————————

The Barbecue Test: Strong Towns meet MLA George Anderson

Have you ever heard the expression south of the border, called “The Barbecue Test”? This colloquial US-expression refers to an idea that a person should vote based on the idea of would they want they have a good time with a political candidate, if they were at a barbecue with them?

Several months ago in August, Strong Towns Nanaimo and MLA George Anderson took part in the following event together: Community BBQ & Movie Night with MLA George Anderson

Archived version below:
Community BBQ & Movie Night with MLA George Anderson – Strong Towns Nanaimo

Above: Screen capture from: Community BBQ & Movie Night with MLA George Anderson – Strong Towns Nanaimo – People, Not Cars (Accessed Nov 11, 2025)
The massive gathering included free food.

Where did the sponsorship money for this event come from? I can’t find any sponsorship information on the Strong Towns Nanaimo website, nor elsewhere. Were public funds used for this event?

Where does the organization get its money from, for this and many other events? Lack of sponsorship information, could indicate a gross lack of transparency and potential astroturfing at play.

Beautiful Nanaimo aka “Strong Towns Nanaimo”, appear to be one of a network of the US-based “Strong Towns” a national lobby pertaining to be a movement, a group espousing YIMBY philosophy having with no sense of irony a Podcast series named Upzoned no less, with mega-sponsored events sometimes involving elected officials that make it much like a US national version of the UDI.

Above image: Excerpt from BC Eliminates SF Zoning – Strong Towns Nanaimo (Accessed Nov 12, 20225)

Links:
Strong Towns
About
The Strong Towns Movement is a Course Correction | Strong Towns

Sponsorship Opportunities | Strong Towns

2026 Strong Towns Sponsor Guide.pdf – Google Drive

—————————————————————————————————

Strong Towns, A national movement from the US, flush with sponsorship money.

Below:
Excerpts from the US-based Strong Towns Sponsor Guide

Its Canadian (51st state) branches appear to be closely associated with local industry-aligned YIMBY activist organizations, which lobby for more housing supply at the cost of everything else.

Strong Towns was founded by Charles Marohn, a former engineer and city planner, headquartered in his home town of Brainerd, Minnesota. According to Wikipedia, proponents of Strong Towns describe its philosophy as “a conservative vision for community,” while critics describe it as anti-government, business-libertarian economics and politics cloaked in “progressive” clothing.

It seems that in recent years, the Canadian branches of the organization (Nanaimo, Delta, Vancouver, Langley, etc.) are rebranding to avoid the “Strong Towns” connotations. The post by Beautiful Nanaimo goes into much greater detail praising Bill M216.

Is this a clue that it’s these activists behind the proposed legislation?

————————————————————————————————–

UDI influence

Or, perhaps we should look deeper at a pattern we’ve seen with housing-related BC Bills 44, 46, 47 and more, adopted in autocratic fashion in 2023, which are also being slammed by municipalities across the province as completely pro-developer but anti-democratic. (As recently as October 31, 2025, the Board of Directors of Metro Vancouver adopted a resolution calling on the Province to repeal that legislation.)

Looking at previous research by CRD Watch, we can see the possible origins of Bill M216 in lobbying documents revealed by FOI inquiries. In lobbying documents we’ve uncovered, we can see wording that resonates with Bill M216 going back to 2022. Also, the lobbying records of the Urban Development Institute as of September 2025 (link) include these items:

“Advocating for streamlined processing to reduce the impact of layered government policies on application approval timelines.”
“Seeking the continuation of the Development Application Process Review and streamlining of Provincial approvals across multiple Ministries, which have contributed to delays in building project approvals.”
” Seeking the monitoring and evaluation of municipal use of new policy tools intended to streamline the approvals process for new housing.”

———————————————————————————————–

Conflict of Interest?

In presenting Bill M216 to the BC Legislature, is George Anderson in potential conflict of interest? His LinkedIn profile features his work as a lawyer. “Construction litigation: George has represented, developers, municipalities, tradespeople, and contractors in disputes involving breach of contract and negligence.”

“George’s practice focuses on defence litigation, including commercial matters, professional liability, construction projects, and class actions. He represents professionals, corporations, and insurers in complex, high-stakes disputes.

George provides steadfast and strategic counsel that structure results to fit the desired outcomes of his clients. His pragmatic approach appreciates the various risks associated with litigation, while achieving cost and time effective results. He has represented clients before the British Columbia Supreme Court, British Columbia Provincial Court, the Ontario Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Justice. He has extensive experience in successful resolving matters by negotiation, at mediation, and in advance of trial.

George’s litigation experience includes:

Insurance defence: George represents a variety of professionals, including engineers, architects, healthcare professionals, and others regarding professional liability. He also represents manufacturers and multi-national retailers with respect to product liability and the defence of claims involving property and bodily injury.

Commercial litigation: George represents and advises, individuals and corporations, with respect to breach of contract, contract interpretation, contract frustration, reputational risk, and leasing issues.

Construction litigation: George has represented, developers, municipalities, tradespeople, and contractors in disputes involving breach of contract and negligence.”

George Anderson – Parliamentary Secretary for Transit and MLA for Nanaimo – Lantzville | LinkedIn (Accessed: Nov 10 , 2025)

————————————————————————————————–

Conclusion:

Bill M216 is a critically dangerous step toward sidelining the local government entities that are closest to the people they serve. While the goal of building housing faster and faster is one driven-by industry and parroted by public relations and the media that acts as it, that speed cannot come at the expense of safety, sustainability, and democratic accountability.

Please urge the Legislative Assembly to heed the concerns of UBCM and civic groups, reject this legislation, and strengthen local oversight rather than hollowing out democracy to advance industry’s profit-mad agenda, at irreversible public and environmental expense.

————————————————————————————————–

Updates:

On Nov 17, 2025 less than a week after this article was published about Strong Town’s support for Bill M216. MLA George Anderson himself, posted on Facebook and Twitter, thanking Strong Towns for their endorsement of Bill M216, which was hardly breaking news at that point.

The link he posted was the Nov 1 article by Strong Towns Nanaimo:

https://www.beautifulnanaimo.ca/posts/2025/11/01/bill-m216

On Dec 30, 2025 -MLA George Anderson made the following comments on Twitter:

George Anderson @G_Anderson1 Dec 30, 2025
There’s a great coalition of people supporting this bill. Homes for Living (an affordable housing advocacy group), Strong Towns, Abundant Housing, Canadian Home Builders. Groups saying doing nothing isn’t an option.

[Note: I added the bolding to Anderson’s comments above to show the special interest groups supporting his bill that he considers a “great coalition”.]

George Anderson @G_Anderson1 Dec 30, 2025
I proposed this bill as a former city councillor & commercial lawyer who wants to see young people, families, & seniors have access to housing. Every month and year of delay are costs that are passed onto people looking for affordable places to live and first time home buyers.

————————————————————————————————–

Appendix 1: Visual Evidence of Strong Town Nanaimo’s linkage to the Strongtowns.org website, based in the US.

All screenshots below are from the time of writing Nov 20, 2025.

Below is a screenshot of Strong Towns Nanaimo’s website on its About Page. Look at the fine print at the bottom of the page. If you click the hyperlink on the text “This is a local Strong Towns conversation”, it takes you to the Strong Towns website in the US Strongtowns.org, which has the same logo as Strong Towns Nanaimo.

Logos of Strong Towns Nanaimo and Strongtown.org zoomed from the image above:

This is what one sees when one clicks the link and it takes one to the main Strong Towns website based in the US at this url: Local Conversations | Strong Towns:

If you then zoom in on the map and click on the Strong Towns branch in Nanaimo from the US website, it shows the details including the web address of Strong Towns Nanaimo: