At the end of the day I really don't think having lawyers reviewing the contract helps that much, unless the buyer is a first time buyer who has no idea what's going on. Most of the terms/clauses in the APS are standard (especially with bigger builders like Pemberton, Tridel etc.) and the lawyers won't be able to do much anyways (developmental charge cap is something a developer may intentionally miss from what I have heard, but these sort of information is easily looked up online these days). Also, most people who buy condos are investors (so the less deposits they have to pay, the better anyways) and some of them will never step in the condo once, so in general they don't really care as long as the unit has low maintenance fee and can be rented out at a good price.
As far as occupancy length goes, this is one thing the government really has to look into at some point. It's quite obvious the builders are taking advantage of this (perhaps not just limited to Pemberton specifically), and to me it is unacceptable to ask people to take occupancy if the building is still basically a full-fledged construction site. Also, if a condo is missing critical items such as shower doors and appliances, how can an occupancy permit even be issued in the first place? Isn't there some sort of requirement/criteria that needs to be met in order for the condo to be considered 'livable'?