CRD Watch Homepage

From Leaky Condos to Leaky Policy: BC’s New Housing Bills 44 and M216 Ignore History


By M. Rose Munro


British Columbia has lived through one of the most expensive housing disasters in Canadian history – the leaky‑condo crisis of the 1980s–2000s. It was the product of rapid development, weak oversight, climate‑inappropriate design, and a government that underestimated the consequences of deregulated growth. Tens of thousands of homeowners paid the price.

Looking at Bill 44 (forced upzoning across municipalities) and Bill M216 (removing or weakening long‑standing covenants and local planning tools), the province is repeating the same pattern. Only this time, the scale is larger, the stakes are higher, and the lessons of the past are nowhere to be found in the province’s decision‑making.

The same rush, the same overconfidence

During the leaky‑condo era, the province embraced rapid construction with the assumption that “more supply” would solve affordability (it did not). Oversight was treated as a barrier, not a safeguard. Today, Bills 44 and M216 reflect the same mindset: speed over scrutiny, volume over quality, and centralization over local knowledge. Municipalities are being told to approve density first and ask questions later, but BC has already seen what happens when buildings go up faster than the systems meant to protect people.

The same sidelining of local expertise

The leaky‑condo crisis was worsened by building codes imported from other climates and applied without regard for BC’s rain‑soaked reality. Local inspectors raised concerns, but the system wasn’t built to listen. Bills 44 and M216 repeat that mistake by overriding local planning, local hydrology, infrastructure limits, and neighbourhood‑specific risks. Once again, the province assumes that one‑size‑fits‑all policy can be safely applied to a province with wildly different geographies and environmental constraints.

The same belief that consequences are someone else’s problem

In the 1990s, when buildings began to rot, the province distanced itself. Homeowners, municipalities, and strata councils were left to fight it out in court. Billions were spent repairing private homes built under provincial rules. It is entirely reasonable to fear a repeat. BC has never been shy about rerunning its greatest mistakes:

• If infrastructure fails under forced density, municipalities pay.

• If developers walk away from poorly planned projects, homeowners pay.

• If climate‑vulnerable areas are upzoned without analysis, entire communities pay.

The province, once again, is insulated from the fallout.

What’s worse this time

The leaky‑condo crisis affected tens of thousands of units. Bills 44 and M216 affect every municipality in BC. The scale is unprecedented. And unlike the 1980s, BC now faces climate‑driven flooding, aging infrastructure, and a housing market already stretched to the breaking point. The government is not just repeating past mistakes, it is amplifying them. What really links the leaky‑condo era to today’s housing legislation is the culture behind it. The same ideology‑driven certainty, the same developer‑lobbying influence over housing reforms, and the same belief that speed and industry pressure can substitute for caution, evidence, or memory. Treating industry pressure as planning logic didn’t work the first time, and assuming that more units, built faster, will fix systemic problems without creating new ones is a mistake BC has already paid for.

Historical echoes:

• 1980s–2000s: The leaky‑condo crisis – rapid construction, weak oversight, climate‑inappropriate design.

• Mid‑2000s: Another boom, with municipalities scrambling to retrofit drainage, roads, and sewers after the fact.

• 2010s: A push for density around transit corridors, again with concerns about infrastructure lagging behind.

• Current era: Bills 44 and M216 – sweeping, province‑wide upzoning and removal of local planning tools, pushed through at high speed.

Recommendations: A Better Path Forward

To avoid repeating another preventable housing disaster, the province should repeal Bills 44 and M216 and replace them with reforms grounded in evidence rather than ideology or industry pressure. That means restoring local planning authority, reinstating real oversight of climate‑appropriate building standards, and ensuring housing policy is shaped by public interest rather than developer lobbying. Growth must be aligned with infrastructure, hydrology, and neighbourhood realities, as opposed to being forced through by blanket legislation. BC has already paid once for ignoring these principles. There’s no reason to pay again.

—————————————————————————————————

See also:

Index of Articles Related to BC Bill M216 – CRD Watch Homepage

Bill 44: The Oversight‑Free Makeover, by M. Rose Munro – CRD Watch Homepage

The NIMBY Smokescreen: How Bill 44 Protects Speculation, Not Communities, by M. Rose Munro – CRD Watch Homepage

Why Setbacks Matter: Protecting the Green Heart of Saanich, by M. Rose Munro – CRD Watch Homepage

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE HOUSING BLITZ, by M. Rose Munro – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of articles revealing major lobbying influence on B.C. Provincial Housing Bills and Housing Targets. – CRD Watch Homepage

Index of articles regarding Law and Bylaw – CRD Watch Homepage