Islands Trust Council regular meeting, December 5, 2025

[0:00:00] Voice 12: and the statutory authority that governs us here today.

[0:00:03] Voice 12: So Islands Trust does not have any authority

[0:00:07] Voice 12: to alter tenure or land ownership.

[0:00:11] Voice 12: So we just need to keep reminding ourselves

[0:00:13] Voice 12: of the statutory authority that we carry

[0:00:17] Voice 12: does not include any negotiations

[0:00:19] Voice 12: over land tenure or ownership.

[0:00:22] Voice 12: Nothing in the court decision,

[0:00:24] Voice 12: I'm referring to the Tlactinas case,

[0:00:26] Voice 12: case changes Islands Trust's land use plan responsibilities or current strategic priorities.

[0:00:34] Voice 12: And one of the big strategic priorities for this Council is updating the policy statement,

[0:00:39] Voice 12: so that's why we're here today.

[0:00:41] Voice 12: In addition, Islands Trust is not a party to the Tlactinas case and will not be commenting

[0:00:49] Voice 12: on the fourth decision.

[0:00:51] Voice 12: Comments or concerns about the potential role in the Tlactinas case should be directed to

[0:00:57] Voice 12: the province of British Columbia. It initially, that was last year, 2020, oh

[0:01:04] Voice 12: sorry, the first,

[0:01:05] Voice 4: the draft that we're, the draft, yeah,

[0:01:07] Voice 4: so when the money came back, it went through

[0:01:10] Voice 4: Committee of the Whole, we had a few of those due to current issues, it got redirected back

[0:01:16] Voice 4: to Trust Programs, of which I was chair, so I was involved in all of those meetings,

[0:01:20] Voice 4: And we received that in April, and we had five meetings over the course of about six

[0:01:27] Voice 4: weeks.

[0:01:29] Voice 12: And that sort of got the review of the changes

[0:01:34] Voice 4: of the code that were a result of 32 resolutions

[0:01:37] Voice 4: by the previous Trust Councilor and by

[0:01:46] Voice 11: the

[0:01:56] Voice 4: time we received it, it had gone through First

[0:02:02] Voice 4: Nations and early First Nations referral, so we had a lot of First Nations input on

[0:02:10] Voice 4: on the draft that included the 32 resolutions

[0:02:17] Voice 4: from the previous trust council

[0:02:19] Voice 4: with this clear understanding

[0:02:21] Voice 4: that this trust council had not yet seen it

[0:02:24] Voice 4: and that there would likely be changes to it.

[0:02:27] Voice 4: So First Nations were well aware of that caveat.

[0:02:33] Voice 4: So what we're seeing before us now

[0:02:36] Voice 4: is the version that this trust council has written

[0:02:42] Voice 4: gone through to make sure that it is in alignment as much as we can see with the mandates that were given to us, First Nations input, and community input as we have received it to date.

[0:02:57] Voice 4: So this is where we're sitting and now we're here again, now we're asking for community input on this version to help us get closer, so have first reading, so now we can receive

[0:03:12] Voice 4: community engagement and input on this version so we can get it to the next right

[0:03:18] Voice 14: yeah

[0:03:19] Voice 12: so it's

[0:03:20] Voice 12: called this is the referral response stage so all the agencies that have whose interests may

[0:03:26] Voice 12: be affected and that includes ltcs and jason will go through this in his presentation

[0:03:30] Voice 12: representation, LTCs, Indigenous governing bodies, MOTI, BC Ferries, like every agency

[0:03:38] Voice 12: that potentially would be affected because we are essentially a bylaw creation and process

[0:03:45] Voice 12: creation from government. So processes interact with other agencies. And so we have to ask them

[0:03:50] Voice 12: for comment too. So all of this is getting pulled together. And that's why it's a six month referral

[0:03:55] Voice 12: referral period so that we can really hear from all these agencies so what we're here today to

[0:04:01] Voice 12: discuss is a draft document that is not perfect and we need to see what does the subpender community

[0:04:06] Voice 12: think about it does it fit with your community official plan and those priorities so with that

[0:04:12] Voice 12: um deg fault uh trustee fault did you want to say anything in these initial stages before i pass it

[0:04:18] Voice 12: over to jason uh

[0:04:19] Voice 1: no i'm listening in and uh i will uh speak up if if i have something and uh

[0:04:25] Voice 1: otherwise for now no comment wonderful

[0:04:29] Voice 12: that's great i'm so glad that you're here and we still

[0:04:31] Voice 12: have uh connection this one's been a challenge uh so we'll turn it over to you and take it to

[0:04:38] Voice 12: your presentation okay thank you chair um

[0:04:41] Voice 10: yeah

[0:04:42] Voice 12: i

[0:04:43] Voice 10: was just gonna ask this here she wouldn't mind

[0:04:45] Voice 10: just pressing the button that's kind of like right in the center of the auctions button.

[0:04:49] Voice 10: Should we try to know this

[0:04:52] Voice 12: word, those words on the screen go away?

[0:04:55] Voice 12: Enter? Yeah, let's try enter.

[0:04:57] Voice 12: And then enter. We're

[0:04:58] Voice 3: going to try.

[0:04:59] Voice 12: Oops. Oh,

[0:05:00] Voice 11: no, I'm good.

[0:05:00] Voice 11: Okay, perfect.

[0:05:07] Voice 12: Screen finish?

[0:05:08] Voice 12: Yeah.

[0:05:09] Voice 12: Oh, yellow frame is larger than the screen.

[0:05:16] Voice 12: Oh, nice.

[0:05:17] Voice 13: It's going to be fun.

[0:05:19] Voice 13: Oh, I know. And then, is there an exit?

[0:05:24] Voice 13: Um, oh,

[0:05:25] Voice 12: screen fit just cross-executes?

[0:05:26] Voice 12: I

[0:05:26] Voice 13: know, but that's what I've done and it keeps...

[0:05:28] Voice 12: Oh, maybe eight?

[0:05:29] Voice 13: We tried them.

[0:05:31] Voice 11: Oh, yeah.

[0:05:34] Voice 4: Oh my gosh.

[0:05:35] Voice 4: I don't know.

[0:05:40] Voice 10: The projector itself keeps moving when you touch it, so I think it's confusing.

[0:05:44] Voice 13: Oh, okay. Let's try that.

[0:05:46] Voice 13: Like, yeah, hold it steady.

[0:05:48] Voice 12: Screen fit.

[0:05:52] Voice 12: If I hit it, then it goes.

[0:05:55] Voice 12: Execute.

[0:05:56] Voice 12: There's no executed.

[0:05:59] Voice 12: I think I hit skip it again and it goes.

[0:06:01] Voice 12: I will just do cancel, but.

[0:06:03] Voice 12: Oh, there we go.

[0:06:04] Voice 12: I think that's good.

[0:06:06] Voice 11: But we still got that.

[0:06:08] Voice 11: Whoa.

[0:06:09] Voice 11: Oh, there we go.

[0:06:10] Voice 11: Okay.

[0:06:10] Voice 13: Oh, my goodness.

[0:06:12] Voice 13: Okay.

[0:06:14] Voice 13: All right.

[0:06:14] Voice 13: Thanks.

[0:06:15] Voice 13: You want?

[0:06:17] Voice 13: That's too dark or okay?

[0:06:18] Voice 13: We're good?

[0:06:20] Voice 10: Okay.

[0:06:21] Voice 10: Thanks, everybody, for joining us today.

[0:06:26] Voice 10: I expect that many of you are regular participants in Islands Trust matters, so some of this may be a bit of a preamble that you already know or that you've heard before, but this presentation is prepared for the generalist audience who might not know as much about the Islands Trust as some of you do.

[0:06:41] Voice 10: So before getting into the policy statement project itself, I would just like to provide a very quick introduction to the Islands Trust that's helpful to receive discussions of the work that the Islands Trust does.

[0:06:52] Voice 10: Islands Trust is a special purpose government responsible for planning and land use management decisions in the Islands Trust area, which is comprised of 13 major islands and more than 450 smaller islands and the surrounding waters in the Strait of Georgia and Housam.

[0:07:05] Voice 10: down. The Islands Trust does its best to preserve and protect these 450 islands in the Salish Sea.

[0:07:11] Voice 10: They're grouped into 13 local trust areas, which each have their own local trust committee and

[0:07:15] Voice 10: make land use decisions for that group of islands using the land use planning authorities under part

[0:07:20] Voice 10: 14 of the Local Government Act. There's also one island municipality, which is Bowen Island,

[0:07:25] Voice 10: which has a municipal council and all the powers of a regular municipality and has two members that

[0:07:30] Voice 10: sit at the trust council table. When all 26 elected Islands Trust trustees come together,

[0:07:37] Voice 10: they do so as the Islands Trust Council to take into account the planning for the region as a whole.

[0:07:42] Voice 10: The Islands Trust is a unique form of government, neither a municipality nor a regional district,

[0:07:46] Voice 10: ultimately it's a special type of government for a special place. The Islands Trust was created in

[0:07:52] Voice 10: 1974 by the government of British Columbia to protect these islands and their unique ecosystems

[0:07:55] Voice 10: and their lifestyles from the rampant over development that was starting to emerge and

[0:08:00] Voice 10: formed small lot subdivisions on several of the islands. Islands Trust was established under the

[0:08:05] Voice 10: Islands Trust Act with a mandate or an object as the legislation says to preserve and protect the

[0:08:10] Voice 10: trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area

[0:08:15] Voice 10: and of British Columbia generally in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts,

[0:08:19] Voice 10: improvement districts, First Nations, other persons and organizations and government in British

[0:08:24] Voice 10: Columbia. So the Islands Trust does its work in cooperation with a number of other entities in

[0:08:30] Voice 10: in order to make this project a success.

[0:08:36] Voice 10: Within the Islands Trust Act, you will find Section 15,

[0:08:39] Voice 10: which states that the Trust Council must, by bylaw,

[0:08:43] Voice 10: adopt a policy statement that applies to the trust area,

[0:08:46] Voice 10: and that the trust policy statement

[0:08:47] Voice 10: must be a general statement of the policies

[0:08:49] Voice 10: of the Trust Council to carry out the object of the trust.

[0:08:52] Voice 10: They establish different policies

[0:08:54] Voice 10: for different parts of the trust area.

[0:08:58] Voice 10: The first Islands Trust Policy Statement was adopted in 1975.

[0:09:02] Voice 10: The current Islands Trust Policy Statement

[0:09:04] Voice 10: has been enforced since 1993 a lot has changed not just in the islands trust area but in canada

[0:09:10] Voice 10: and the wider world since then and in 2019 islands trust council decided it was time to update the

[0:09:15] Voice 10: islands trust policy statement to better help the islands trust navigate today's challenges

[0:09:19] Voice 10: tomorrow's opportunities this slide provides a graphic representation of how the islands trusted

[0:09:26] Voice 10: or how the policy statement functions within the islands trust it is our highest level

[0:09:31] Voice 10: land use policy document and from it we can then derive our official community plans and our zoning

[0:09:38] Voice 10: bylaws which of course then have an impact on the island landscapes that you see around you

[0:09:43] Voice 10: official community plans must not be contrary or at variance to the policy statement

[0:09:48] Voice 10: and zoning bylaws then must be consistent with those ocps that are found to be consistent with

[0:09:53] Voice 10: the policy statement the islands trust policy statement is the foundation for strategic

[0:10:01] Voice 10: planning that the Islands Trust Council does when a newly elected Trust Council gets together to

[0:10:05] Voice 10: figure out how it wants to spend its four years together. In theory, it should look to the Islands

[0:10:09] Voice 10: Trust policy statement and the goals that are laid out within it to determine how it wants to

[0:10:14] Voice 10: allocate its resources, its staff time, its budgets in pursuit of those goals. The policy statement

[0:10:20] Voice 10: serves, as I previously mentioned, sort of a review function for official community plans and

[0:10:24] Voice 10: regulatory bylaws. Bylaws that are proposed by local trust committees must go to the Islands

[0:10:30] Voice 10: trust executive committee for review to determine whether or not those bylaws are consistent with

[0:10:35] Voice 10: the policy statement so the policy statement is the filter through which official community plans

[0:10:40] Voice 10: and regulatory bylaws are put to ensure that they're consistent with the federation-wide

[0:10:43] Voice 10: vision for the trust area and the policy statement also forms the foundation for the

[0:10:48] Voice 10: intergovernmental relationships that the islands trust strikes so we have letters of agreement

[0:10:53] Voice 10: letters of understanding protocol agreements with provincial agencies with regional districts with

[0:10:58] Voice 10: indigenous governing bodies and when the islands trust enters into the conversations or negotiations

[0:11:03] Voice 10: to determine what the content of those agreements should be those who are involved in those

[0:11:08] Voice 10: conversations should be looking at the policy statement to ensure that these agreements that

[0:11:13] Voice 10: we enter into advance the goals that are set out in the policy statement or at the very least

[0:11:16] Voice 10: contrary to whatever the goals are that are articulated in the policy statement how will

[0:11:26] Voice 10: the policy statement impact you as a landowner in the short term i don't anticipate there will

[0:11:31] Voice 10: will be any impact to you unless you're applying to amend the official community plan or the land

[0:11:35] Voice 10: use bylaw as either of those documents apply to your land. So once the new policy statement,

[0:11:40] Voice 10: if and when the new policy statement is adopted, it then becomes the filter through which any

[0:11:47] Voice 10: proposed bylaws are put. So if you as a property owner are rezoning your property, let's say to

[0:11:51] Voice 10: increase the residential capacity

[0:11:52] Voice 10: that's permitted on it, executive committee eventually will look at

[0:11:56] Voice 10: that bylaw and ask itself whether or not what's being proposed is consistent with the new policy

[0:12:01] Voice 10: statement. In the medium term, I anticipate it will be expected by Trust Council that local

[0:12:09] Voice 10: trust committee bylaws, official community plans and land use bylaws, are brought into consistency

[0:12:14] Voice 10: with the policy statement. This may ultimately result, depending on how they choose to do that,

[0:12:20] Voice 10: in more ways to use your land, fewer ways to use your land, or different ways to use your land,

[0:12:25] Voice 10: depending on what your own local trust committee decides to do with its local

[0:12:29] Voice 10: bylaws to bring them into alignment with the new policy statement. How will the policy

[0:12:35] Voice 10: statement impact you as an island resident, not with the property owner lands?

[0:12:39] Voice 10: Again, in the short term, there's probably going to be no impact unless your

[0:12:42] Voice 10: local trust committee moves very quickly to update its OCP and land use bylaw to bring

[0:12:47] Voice 10: it into alignment with the policy statement. Then perhaps you may notice

[0:12:50] Voice 10: some change to the island. It's difficult to

[0:12:54] Voice 10: to foresee what that might look like.

[0:12:57] Voice 10: In the medium term,

[0:12:59] Voice 10: if the goals of the new policy statement are realized,

[0:13:02] Voice 10: you should see a reduced pace of disturbance

[0:13:04] Voice 10: to characteristic island ecosystems,

[0:13:06] Voice 10: given the emphasis of the document

[0:13:08] Voice 10: on the protection of those ecosystems.

[0:13:10] Voice 10: And hopefully you will see a greater range

[0:13:12] Voice 10: of housing options in the right places on the islands.

[0:13:15] Voice 10: That reflects the focus of this current trust council

[0:13:18] Voice 10: on the issue of housing diversity,

[0:13:20] Voice 10: which is something that we've heard from many communities

[0:13:23] Voice 10: or many islands is a significant concern within them.

[0:13:32] Voice 10: As the chair noted, efforts to update the policy statement

[0:13:35] Voice 10: have been underway since 2019.

[0:13:38] Voice 10: The initiative to do so was in part an effort

[0:13:41] Voice 10: to respond to three things.

[0:13:43] Voice 10: One is reconciliation with indigenous people.

[0:13:45] Voice 10: In 2019, the Islands Trust

[0:13:47] Voice 10: passed the reconciliation declaration,

[0:13:49] Voice 10: and so updating the policy statement

[0:13:51] Voice 10: to better align with the proactive statement

[0:13:54] Voice 10: made in the reconciliation declaration

[0:13:55] Voice 10: was important for the organization to do.

[0:13:59] Voice 10: In 2019, the Islands Trust Council declared there to be a climate change emergency and

[0:14:04] Voice 10: so again the policy statement is being updated through that lens and the Islands Trust Council

[0:14:10] Voice 10: has also declared there to be a workforce shortage and housing equity crisis on the

[0:14:14] Voice 10: island and so there is an emphasis within the new draft policy statement on some housing

[0:14:19] Voice 10: related matters.

[0:14:22] Voice 10: Text is probably a little small, this just shows where we are in our project process.

[0:14:28] Voice 10: process. In July of this year, the draft policy statement was given first reading by Islands

[0:14:35] Voice 10: Trusted Council, so the first stage of a formal by-law approval process, and that came after

[0:14:40] Voice 10: five years of work that preceded it. As the chair mentioned, we're currently in the midst

[0:14:46] Voice 10: of a six-month engagement period, during which time the draft by-law has been referred to

[0:14:52] Voice 10: all of the agencies, regional districts, and Indigenous governing bodies that we work in

[0:14:55] Voice 10: cooperation with for their for their feedback to us we're traveling around the islands talking to

[0:15:01] Voice 10: communities like yours gathering feedback that way directly to the trustees and there's also

[0:15:07] Voice 10: a survey available online on our islands 2050 website which if you haven't taken around if

[0:15:12] Voice 10: you're aware of this or taking the time to fill it out we would encourage you to do so we also have

[0:15:17] Voice 10: a few paper copies of the survey here folks like to do things the analog way um all of this with

[0:15:25] Voice 10: the intention of reporting back to trust council at their march quarterly meeting with an aggregation

[0:15:32] Voice 10: and a summary of all of the feedback that we've received on the draft policy statement during

[0:15:37] Voice 10: this six-month engagement window um and hopefully with some proposed provisions based on that at

[0:15:44] Voice 10: that time and of course trustees themselves are likely going to come to that meeting with all

[0:15:47] Voice 10: sorts of recommendations to revise the documents as well because they're at the bakery and at the

[0:15:52] Voice 10: grocery store talking to to community members like yourselves and um and gathering perspective

[0:15:57] Voice 10: on it that way it is the intention of trust council that this new policy statement should

[0:16:04] Voice 10: be adopted before the next local government elections which takes place in the fall of 2026

[0:16:08] Voice 10: so that's the timeline that we're that we're looking for it's not assured i don't think that

[0:16:14] Voice 10: we're going to meet that but that's the that's the finish line the trust council has in mind

[0:16:18] Voice 10: is that they'd like to get this over the finish line um before there's a new round of elections

[0:16:27] Voice 10: This isn't a particularly helpful slide, I don't think, but it does summarize the stages of engagement that have taken place during this project.

[0:16:34] Voice 10: And if you go to our Islands 2050 project website, you can find reports on the feedback previously received and how it was incorporated into the draft document.

[0:16:46] Voice 14: And

[0:16:47] Voice 10: I also am usually sitting at my desk. So if you want to just call me and chat with me, I can share any information that you need.

[0:16:55] Voice 12: so i can just pause on that last slide for a second so

[0:16:59] Voice 10: just

[0:17:01] Voice 12: to clarify where were we at

[0:17:03] Voice 12: in 2021-22 with the previous council does anyone have any questions about having reached first

[0:17:11] Voice 12: reading with the previous draft that was sent out for comment and then when the new trust council

[0:17:18] Voice 12: came in it had to work from 32 resolutions that the previous council

[0:17:26] Voice 12: had made that were they wanted more clarity simplifying some of the language

[0:17:33] Voice 12: I think there was removal of some coordination policies and so the draft

[0:17:41] Voice 12: that we're seeing today is I wouldn't say it's substantially different from

[0:17:48] Voice 12: the 2021 version but it had to incorporate previous council's direction plus input from

[0:17:55] Voice 12: indigenous governing bodies and there had been a survey back then as well so this is sort of a new

[0:18:03] Voice 12: first reading we're looking at this draft through the lens of today it's not necessary and we've

[0:18:08] Voice 12: heard from some people that the 2021 draft you know they're like where is that coordination

[0:18:14] Voice 12: nation policy where is that for a studentship policy and so this is an opportunity to look at

[0:18:19] Voice 12: actually two drafts and say well did we miss something there's something it was it stronger

[0:18:25] Voice 12: in this draft that needs to be strengthened than this one so we're looking for that constructive

[0:18:30] Voice 12: feedback but we're still at the place of first reading right even though we've already done

[0:18:35] Voice 12: first reading uh sorry correction you didn't have this meeting on that first no 2021 no well

[0:18:41] Voice 12: forgive me thank you okay this is first reading the 2021 brown went up for that moment nope it

[0:18:49] Voice 12: was in an agenda and the community sort of agenda package chair gets corrected i love it thank you

[0:18:58] Voice 12: so yes for the record we didn't get to first reading um yeah and it caused quite a lot of

[0:19:04] Voice 12: alarm in the community. So now our first reading. Thank you, Jason. Please continue.

[0:19:08] Voice 12: Thank you, Chair.

[0:19:09] Voice 12: Thank

[0:19:09] Voice 10: you for bringing it up.

[0:19:17] Voice 10: So this process started in 2019

[0:19:20] Voice 10: and in 2021, Trust Council

[0:19:24] Voice 10: put together a comprehensive complete draft, a 33-page

[0:19:28] Voice 10: draft that really addressed a wide range of

[0:19:32] Voice 10: of issues, particularly reconciliation, climate change, and housing.

[0:19:40] Voice 10: Trustees have taken another three years of staff time and trustee time and taxpayers'

[0:19:48] Voice 10: dollars to make a quite different rewrite of the trust policy statement from the 2021

[0:19:56] Voice 10: draft.

[0:19:56] Voice 10: So

[0:19:57] Voice 12: your opinions on that are welcome.

[0:19:59] Voice 12: If we can get to that when we're at the question-answer period so we can answer, because I don't want to go down the rabbit hole too much.

[0:20:05] Voice 10: Okay, but I know I won't get to that later, but I have not yet heard reasons or rationale for an additional three years of trustee time, staff time, and taxpayer dollars

[0:20:24] Voice 10: to arrive at what seems like a shift in approach.

[0:20:31] Voice 10: I have a

[0:20:32] Voice 12: question that if we can answer that during the question answer period,

[0:20:35] Voice 12: I'll write it down.

[0:20:37] Voice 12: And that's a good point about why is the process taking another three years

[0:20:43] Voice 12: to get to first reading?

[0:20:45] Voice 4: I can address that when we get there.

[0:20:46] Voice 4: Sure.

[0:20:47] Voice 12: Yeah.

[0:20:47] Voice 12: Thank you.

[0:20:49] Voice 11: Okay.

[0:20:51] Voice 11: All right.

[0:20:54] Voice 10: So what's in the draft policy statement?

[0:20:55] Voice 10: there are basically three types of policies there are guiding principles which describe how the

[0:21:01] Voice 10: islands trust council should make its decisions what should they keep in mind as they turn their

[0:21:05] Voice 10: attention to important decisions in the trust council table there are directive policies which

[0:21:11] Voice 10: are things that local trust committees and other municipalities must be in their official community

[0:21:16] Voice 10: plans and land use bylaws and there are advisory policies which are things that trust council

[0:21:22] Voice 10: Council thinks that Local Trust Committees and Island Municipalities should do, but are

[0:21:26] Voice 10: perhaps beyond the direct jurisdiction or direct authority of a Local Trust Committee

[0:21:31] Voice 10: to do.

[0:21:32] Voice 10: And so these are areas where maybe the action that the Local Trust Committee could take

[0:21:37] Voice 10: is writing a letter of support or something.

[0:21:39] Voice 10: They're not directly, for the most part, within the Land Use Planning Authority's Local Trust

[0:21:44] Voice 10: Committee, but they are on subject that the Council feels strongly about.

[0:21:48] Voice 10: it. I just want to run quickly through a couple of sample policies under the three major lenses

[0:21:54] Voice 10: that I mentioned of reconciliation, climate change, and housing. Under the guiding principles,

[0:22:02] Voice 10: you will find that the first guiding principle in the document is that the Islands Trust Council

[0:22:06] Voice 10: will acknowledge and respect Indigenous rights, with a goal to grow understanding of the history

[0:22:11] Voice 10: and legacy of colonialism in the Islands Trust area, to acknowledge and respect the rights of

[0:22:14] Voice 10: Indigenous people, and to work together with Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous

[0:22:17] Voice 10: knowledge holders to preserve and protect culturally significant areas, sites, and species.

[0:22:22] Voice 10: So when Islands Trust Council is carrying out its work, it should be carrying this in their minds

[0:22:28] Voice 10: as they're sitting around that table. Second guiding principle is to prioritize environmental

[0:22:33] Voice 10: and Indigenous cultural heritage protection to place priority on preserving, protecting,

[0:22:38] Voice 10: and restoring the environment, and preserving, protecting, and supporting the restoration of

[0:22:42] Voice 10: Indigenous cultural heritage in all decision making. Keeping in mind that I need to update

[0:22:50] Voice 10: this slide. So probably the strongest way in which those principles are going to be enacted

[0:23:01] Voice 10: is through Directive Policy 3.1.1, which is that local trust committees and island municipalities

[0:23:07] Voice 10: and all official community plan bylaws and other bylaws that require executive committee

[0:23:11] Voice 10: trust council review or approval must engage with Indigenous governing bodies and provide a record

[0:23:16] Voice 10: of the engagement at the time of by-law submission. So this is saying that when local trust committees

[0:23:21] Voice 10: now municipalities are looking to amend their OCPs or their land use by-laws that those by-laws should

[0:23:26] Voice 10: be referred to Indigenous governing bodies and the record of what was learned through that engagement

[0:23:32] Voice 10: should be provided to the executive committee at the time of by-law approval and in doing so

[0:23:38] Voice 10: this is how Islands Trust is going to better learn about the interests of the Indigenous governing

[0:23:44] Voice 10: bodies that have um that call these islands home also under these directive policies are policies

[0:23:53] Voice 10: to minimize potential adverse impacts to indigenous cultural heritage sites to minimize

[0:23:56] Voice 10: potential adverse impacts to marine harvesting areas used by indigenous people and to minimize

[0:24:00] Voice 10: potential adverse impacts to land-based harvesting it's been pointed out to me that there's no

[0:24:08] Voice 10: specific goal or chapter in the draft policy statement about climate change rather um climate

[0:24:15] Voice 10: Climate change is addressed across a number of the policy areas in the document, probably

[0:24:23] Voice 10: most acutely in the ecosystem protection policies of the document, which is to say the Islands

[0:24:32] Voice 10: Trust should generally be doing its best to maintain ecosystems of the islands intact

[0:24:36] Voice 10: and therefore not disturb the carbon sequestration services that those ecosystems provide.

[0:24:44] Voice 10: There are also policies within the document recognizing that climate change is, of course, here and is having impacts on our communities.

[0:24:51] Voice 10: And so we should be working to reduce the risks to our communities from adverse impacts from climate change,

[0:24:57] Voice 10: such as through policy 3.4.6 about hazardous areas, which requires local trust committees to identify areas

[0:25:04] Voice 10: at elevated risk of natural and climate change related hazards and restrict development within these areas,

[0:25:08] Voice 10: including but not limited to areas subject to flooding, sea level rise, erosion,

[0:25:12] Voice 10: slope instability, and wildfire. I will note, particularly with those trusty

[0:25:18] Voice 10: evidences here, and this is an important discussion that we had, restricting

[0:25:22] Voice 10: development does not necessarily mean pro-continent development.

[0:25:27] Voice 10: Either maintaining it at its current level rather than increasing it, or

[0:25:31] Voice 10: finding other ways to mitigate whatever

[0:25:34] Voice 9: risk might exist. On the housing

[0:25:41] Voice 9: front

[0:25:41] Voice 10: during this policy statement development process and just within

[0:25:48] Voice 10: communities of the islands trust generally the lack of housing diversity

[0:25:52] Voice 10: comes up as a regular feature in community conversation in an earlier

[0:25:57] Voice 10: engagement on the policy statement found that there's a real interest in island

[0:26:02] Voice 10: residents of people wanting to be able to age in place and have more you know

[0:26:07] Voice 10: how the housing stock that allows residents to age in place rather than

[0:26:10] Voice 10: having to move off island as they age and also there needs to be a housing stock that's suitable

[0:26:16] Voice 10: for the working for the workforce of the islands that we have so there's an emphasis within this

[0:26:21] Voice 10: document on housing diversity i point to the directive policy 3.4.11 which says local trust

[0:26:29] Voice 10: committees must identify suitable locations that could support increased density for the development

[0:26:33] Voice 10: development of safe, secure, diverse, and attainable housing, suitable location being

[0:26:38] Voice 10: key to that policy where nobody is talking about housing everywhere, but more so a little

[0:26:45] Voice 10: bit more housing and in the right places on these islands.

[0:26:49] Voice 10: There's also a policy in support of housing diversity, which is the local trust needs

[0:26:53] Voice 10: should support a range of housing types and tenures to help meet the identified housing

[0:26:57] Voice 10: needs of the island community and local indigenous communities.

[0:27:00] Voice 10: and then there's 3.4.13 around clustered small dwelling units which is the local trust committees

[0:27:06] Voice 10: should support alternatives to conventional single detached dwellings by establishing policies to

[0:27:11] Voice 10: permit clusters of small dwelling units in suitable areas and this is trying to open the door a crack

[0:27:16] Voice 10: for things like small tiny home villages and those types of housing typologies right next steps in

[0:27:26] Voice 10: this process as noted the bylaw was given first reading in july currently in the midst of this

[0:27:32] Voice 10: six-month engagement period and encourage you to participate in whichever ways um you would you

[0:27:38] Voice 10: would like to do so and then uh we're you know we're collecting all of that feedback right now

[0:27:43] Voice 10: beginning slowly to process some of it or at least figure out what we need to do to respond to some

[0:27:48] Voice 10: of it in the spring of 2026 most likely at trust council's march meeting we want to be able to

[0:27:53] Voice 10: report into them with a what we heard report and any recommendations for the bylaw amendment

[0:27:57] Voice 10: which could then lead to consideration of second and third reading of the bylaw in the summer of

[0:28:03] Voice 10: 2026. If that should happen, the bylaw then goes to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs

[0:28:09] Voice 10: for their review and hopeful approval, which if we've done our homework ahead of time,

[0:28:16] Voice 14: we

[0:28:17] Voice 10: hope will be a quick process and the bylaw could be back before Trust Council for consideration

[0:28:22] Voice 10: consideration of adoption in the fall of 2026.

[0:28:28] Voice 9: That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

[0:28:32] Voice 9: Thank you, Jason.

[0:28:37] Voice 12: So just to get a sense of who's in the room and what you'd like to speak to,

[0:28:42] Voice 12: who has questions about process?

[0:28:45] Voice 12: You mentioned one fall you had a question about process.

[0:28:49] Voice 12: Questions about process, so about three, four questions about process.

[0:28:52] Voice 12: um questions about content what are the actual policies um do you have questions like is there

[0:29:00] Voice 12: specific policies that you've got questions about a couple there one or two or three yeah great

[0:29:06] Voice 12: um and my third question just escape oh yeah and opinions this is south pender i'm expecting to

[0:29:14] Voice 12: hear some opinions um so who has feedback for us like do you have any opinions of this i don't like

[0:29:21] Voice 12: this. You've got one or two opinions. Excellent. Arrange. Perfect. So just figuring out how to work

[0:29:30] Voice 12: through this. Let's give ourselves an hour and then take a break. And can we start with three minutes

[0:29:39] Voice 12: to sort of state your question, concern, opinion. And let's try to do one topic at a time so we can

[0:29:47] Voice 12: how to answer that question or get into the substance of what you're and what we can do

[0:29:52] Voice 12: multiple rounds so you don't have to rush to get it all in

[0:29:55] Voice 9: yeah

[0:29:57] Voice 12: yeah it's really hard for us for me

[0:30:00] Voice 12: particularly to hear three different things and then go okay remember and respond to them so let's

[0:30:05] Voice 12: we've got enough time that we can go through everybody get through all your questions um

[0:30:10] Voice 12: and i will do a little timer just to keep it even it actually it helps us at trust council as well

[0:30:19] Voice 12: we have that little timer even if nobody pays the time to do it

[0:30:25] Voice 12: There we are, and we'll do through it. So who would like to go first?

[0:30:31] Voice 12: Sure. Do you want to start, Paul? It's your question about why did it take another three

[0:30:36] Voice 12: years of cogitation to get to first reading this?

[0:30:42] Voice 10: There was already a comprehensive draft. It was. It was ready for first reading.

[0:30:47] Voice 10: Yeah.

[0:30:48] Voice 4: So I said that I would respond to your question. So that first draft that was seen by the public was not a first draft that was necessarily ready for first reading, although there was discussion that they were bringing it forth for potential first readings.

[0:31:09] Voice 4: um after that that trust council then um heard from the community made 32 resolutions and those

[0:31:20] Voice 4: were handed to staff just prior to the elections so after the elections staff were still working

[0:31:27] Voice 4: through those 32 resolutions and that took about another six six seven months we lost key staff

[0:31:33] Voice 4: and we lost key staff um that were working on it so we had to go through a hiring process

[0:31:38] Voice 4: that had to be a knowledge transfer, and somebody to come in and put it out. So during that time,

[0:31:45] Voice 4: one of the directors who had some understanding stepped in to take over. And so then,

[0:31:54] Voice 4: once those 32 resolutions were completed, the final resolution and part of the project charter

[0:32:01] Voice 4: was that it go out to First Nations for early engagement, as I mentioned earlier,

[0:32:06] Voice 4: with the understanding that this trust council had not yet reviewed it and would most likely,

[0:32:13] Voice 4: highly likely, undergo further changes so that that caveat was understood by First Nations.

[0:32:18] Voice 12: First Nations then received it prior to this council ever seeing it. It was 2022 and I'll just

[0:32:25] Voice 12: yeah I'll let you know there's a record of the engagement and the feedback from Indigenous

[0:32:30] Voice 12: the new bodies but 2022 that opportunity was given for early engagement and so we had to as you're

[0:32:37] Voice 12: saying have that brought back so the new seven

[0:32:40] Voice 12: trustees i know so um clarification on that that

[0:32:44] Voice 10: so that early engagement was with the draft for 2021 draft the

[0:32:51] Voice 4: revised 2021 draft of the 32

[0:32:53] Voice 4: resolutions that the previous council had directed staff to undertake

[0:32:57] Voice 9: that's the 2021

[0:32:58] Voice 9: the

[0:32:59] Voice 4: 2021 round with the 32 and that's what we're seeing here this is a result of those 32

[0:33:06] Voice 4: resolutions made by the previous trust council okay um and so then when the engagement period

[0:33:15] Voice 4: was coming to a close from first nations first nations requested an extension so they got an

[0:33:21] Voice 4: extension into 2023. So this trust council and then when the First Nations have provided their

[0:33:31] Voice 4: input staff then needed another six months in order to input the information received by First

[0:33:42] Voice 4: Nations. So this council got to see it for the first time I believe it was in September last year.

[0:33:48] Voice 8: here.

[0:33:49] Voice 4: So we've had it for just over a year now. And when we first got it at the September

[0:33:55] Voice 4: Council, we struck committee of the whole to have to review it and to see the First Nations

[0:34:04] Voice 4: referral input, plus the 32 resolutions from the previous Trans Council,

[0:34:10] Voice 4: and then to look at it with a lens of what we're mandated with, what the goal was,

[0:34:15] Voice 4: make sure it was in alignment have um and make sure that it that it aligned with our legislation

[0:34:21] Voice 4: as well so

[0:34:23] Voice 12: I went through legal review there was an early you didn't say that well we had to okay

[0:34:29] Voice 12: I know we've had to but I thought we were advised not to say that because once we then anyway I keep

[0:34:35] Voice 12: getting slapped on the campus saying that

[0:34:36] Voice 4: um i was being diplomatic um um so due to a lack of quorum

[0:34:46] Voice 4: at the committee of the whole meeting so we couldn't make any recommendations to trust council

[0:34:52] Voice 4: in april it went trust uh um so at the uh march at the march trust council meeting they said trust

[0:35:04] Voice 4: programs, take this back on again. It's not progressing. It's not getting the review.

[0:35:09] Voice 4: So those five meetings, we took a look at the draft recommendations made during the

[0:35:15] Voice 4: whole meetings and reviewed the remainder of the trust policy statement. So that's the

[0:35:23] Voice 4: full timeline and the portion that this trust council has actually had eyes on this.

[0:35:31] Voice 14: So

[0:35:31] Voice 4: what you're seeing is the work of the previous Trust Council with a review from this Trust Council.

[0:35:40] Voice 4: Does that help?

[0:35:43] Voice 12: Yeah.

[0:35:44] Voice 12: Can you feedback on that from the process point of view?

[0:35:51] Voice 12: Did you miss anything?

[0:35:53] Voice 10: No, nothing jumps out at me.

[0:35:55] Voice 10: you know i don't think we can understate the staff turnover impact on the work in conjunction with

[0:36:00] Voice 10: with much of what you described there trustee evans i think i i am now the fifth staff person

[0:36:07] Voice 10: tasked with managing this project since notwithstanding directors filling in the gaps

[0:36:12] Voice 10: but since 2020 for two or three probably so plus

[0:36:18] Voice 4: we've had um there's 31 notions that we were

[0:36:21] Voice 4: referring to and getting getting

[0:36:25] Voice 12: feedback from so that was a very heavy heavy undertaking so there

[0:36:30] Voice 12: has been considerable i won't even say refinements because i think the later stages of for refining

[0:36:40] Voice 12: there were some big questions we still were struggling to answer for instance what does

[0:36:46] Voice 12: it mean when you're going to say you must identify forest ecosystems and prioritize their protection

[0:36:54] Voice 12: if you are using a word like identify does that then require a large scale mapping of every

[0:37:02] Voice 12: single island so that you know which forest ecosystems are protecting so there was a lot

[0:37:07] Voice 12: when we were hearing from indigenous government bodies saying for instance you know protecting

[0:37:12] Voice 12: protecting preserving our cultural heritage on the islands is important well how does that

[0:37:17] Voice 12: interface with our actual land use planning responsibilities how does that interface with

[0:37:22] Voice 12: the provincial responsibilities for heritage conservation protection um so there was a lot of

[0:37:27] Voice 12: um questions of i would say jurisdiction responsibility that needed to be discussed

[0:37:34] Voice 12: and they're not easy answers to have with any black and white finality and so we landed in a

[0:37:43] Voice 12: place where there's certain guiding principles that are here's all the things that we want to

[0:37:48] Voice 12: keep in mind those are policies those are guiding principles for trust council so the substance of

[0:37:54] Voice 12: the document the backbone for everything we do though is the actual policies and so

[0:37:59] Voice 12: that's what

[0:38:00] Voice 12: what we're really looking for today is your input how do these policies potentially affect

[0:38:05] Voice 12: 700 community these larger questions of jurisdiction is sort of what we have to

[0:38:11] Voice 12: wrestle with and why i referred to legal counsel is we have to check back in and say what is island

[0:38:17] Voice 12: trust legally able to say we can can do or not right so what has come back is more situated in

[0:38:26] Voice 12: our jurisdictional authority than some of the more ambitious things that we're being asked yes

[0:38:34] Voice 10: i'm going to try and put a couple of things out a few things can you

[0:38:38] Voice 12: say your name just for a

[0:38:39] Voice 12: moment yes okay thanks john

[0:38:42] Voice 10: um so i read it is the existing policy because policy stated

[0:38:48] Voice 10: the draft that was circulated about things before the 32

[0:38:51] Voice 10: to directives or not, and then the most recent.

[0:38:58] Voice 10: And so I would appreciate some feedback in terms of context,

[0:39:02] Voice 10: but also have context, specific context, opinions.

[0:39:07] Voice 10: So I can imagine that it was a Herculean task

[0:39:12] Voice 10: to try to get this into some form that you could get

[0:39:16] Voice 10: signed off the circular.

[0:39:17] Voice 10: And that perhaps informs part of what I'm looking for in the context.

[0:39:26] Voice 10: So that specifically, what tensions are there amongst the 26 trustees and how does that

[0:39:34] Voice 10: reflect in the grant?

[0:39:36] Voice 10: To be more specific about it, I noticed things like in the preambles in the prior versions

[0:39:43] Voice 10: there are quite extensive statements of context in how the object is applied.

[0:39:49] Voice 10: They're gone in the current version.

[0:39:52] Voice 10: And since this document has primacy for all the Island's Trust and the local trust committees,

[0:40:00] Voice 10: I find it curious that if someone picked it up that didn't have the history,

[0:40:08] Voice 10: that they wouldn't understand the importance of it.

[0:40:12] Voice 10: and it feels like it's been devalued and that causes me a lot of concern so i appreciate

[0:40:22] Voice 10: feedback yeah

[0:40:24] Voice 4: i had a very similar position um so staff had been directed by the previous

[0:40:32] Voice 4: council to shorten and simplify this document and as part of that shortening it was removed

[0:40:38] Voice 4: moved. There were some of us that were asking for it to be put back in. But the direction was this

[0:40:46] Voice 4: needs to come from the community at large now. So if that is something that is of concern to you,

[0:40:51] Voice 12: I would write that position in and request that it be moved.

[0:40:56] Voice 10: I feel quite strongly about it because in a way it feels like it's starting to be diluted.

[0:41:04] Voice 10: And I fully appreciate the simplification and

[0:41:10] Voice 10: streamlining and decisional language and things like that are really important,

[0:41:15] Voice 10: but it feels like there's a kind of a devaluation that's going on,

[0:41:20] Voice 10: and then it becomes irrelevant.

[0:41:22] Voice 10: So if this is to stand for 2050, it feels like we're taking a step back.

[0:41:43] Voice 12: So I have a bit of feedback on that, but you had some earlier questions about where does

[0:41:50] Voice 12: the tensions between the 26 trustees, it wasn't a consensus draft. There are still areas that

[0:42:03] Voice 12: some trustees disagree with, some policies that, for instance, the small clustered dwellings,

[0:42:12] Voice 12: where I can see that when you look at it LTC by LTC, may not be appropriate for each community.

[0:42:20] Voice 12: right and so that's the kind of feedback we're looking for is we've given it our best shot as

[0:42:24] Voice 12: trustees as representatives of our communities that's like how does that fit you know does small

[0:42:30] Voice 12: cluster dwellings as a policy fit from the skidi you know to south pender um and that's where you

[0:42:38] Voice 12: want to think about what's a directive policy what is advisory and what's a guiding principle right

[0:42:44] Voice 12: those are the different components. The problem and getting back to your preambles,

[0:42:51] Voice 12: the challenge is that a preamble and an explainer about the statutory responsibilities is not a

[0:42:57] Voice 12: policy document itself. It has no weight and therefore how a preamble is written could be

[0:43:03] Voice 12: politicized. It could be weighted with the views of council of that day and then the next council

[0:43:12] Voice 12: comes in and says well that doesn't represent us or our communities and it's actually sitting it's

[0:43:17] Voice 12: not sitting well but yet that's a preamble it's an introduction to a policy document that does

[0:43:22] Voice 12: not have legislative weight so if you want preambles and explainers and all of that I

[0:43:28] Voice 12: agree it's important but should it be part of a policy document where essentially you're like my

[0:43:34] Voice 12: job is executive committee it's going does this you know bylaw coming from south pender this ocp

[0:43:40] Voice 12: amendment um you know line up with these policies the preamble has nothing to do with it

[0:43:48] Voice 10: but it's

[0:43:49] Voice 10: a really simple observation so if i look at uh all three versions make a statement of the object

[0:43:54] Voice 10: obviously that's critical um the the current 2003 statement uh includes an explanation of the

[0:44:05] Voice 10: meaning of the object yeah but that's

[0:44:07] Voice 10: absolutely yeah

[0:44:08] Voice 12: but is it well and maybe i'll turn to policy

[0:44:11] Voice 12: advisor um this is a

[0:44:14] Voice 12: political discussion and i think

[0:44:17] Voice 12: it's important because we've we've talked

[0:44:22] Voice 12: about it as council you know there has been several views that we needed explainers what

[0:44:28] Voice 12: is the object of the trust but the object of the trust is in legislation right and the place for

[0:44:34] Voice 12: explaining that is in whatever material you want to put out does it belong in a policy statement

[0:44:40] Voice 12: that's sort of the question um in framing the importance of this document and what does it mean

[0:44:45] Voice 12: for island communities i would say it's tough to have a preamble that explains

[0:44:55] Voice 12: the object of the trust that's not going to take any political direction

[0:45:00] Voice 12: And

[0:45:01] Voice 4: we're trying

[0:45:02] Voice 12: to stay away from that actually, like let the policies stand for themselves

[0:45:06] Voice 12: because they are the actual measure against which you evaluate, is this bylaw going to

[0:45:15] Voice 12: uphold the object of the trust?

[0:45:18] Voice 12: You see what I mean?

[0:45:19] Voice 12: But again, this is where there is a split with the trustees regarding the,

[0:45:26] Voice 4: and this

[0:45:30] Voice 4: is public that the legal information that we have received regarding definitions contained within

[0:45:35] Voice 4: the object of the trust so does that uh does that belong in the highest level of document

[0:45:46] Voice 4: to contain the legal position of the object of the trust that's the that's the diff that's the split

[0:45:55] Voice 4: with this discussion like i said this is a political discussion this isn't a

[0:45:58] Voice 4: a community with this it's not going to get results sitting at this table there is a split

[0:46:05] Voice 4: on this and as mentioned it is currently being taken out if you feel strongly I recommend that

[0:46:10] Voice 4: you write in so that the discussion can be accepted.

[0:46:14] Voice 12: I see an earlier version has roles

[0:46:16] Voice 12: and responsibilities that aren't reflected here but the purpose of the island's trust policy

[0:46:21] Voice 12: policy statement is still I think here it's abbreviated but if you think that should be

[0:46:30] Voice 12: multiple lights a preamble that was written in 2021 I'd say that's very good feedback

[0:46:35] Voice 12: my caution the

[0:46:38] Voice 12: one that was previously yeah my update is my caution is that as our understanding

[0:46:46] Voice 12: of how to uphold the object of the trust

[0:46:51] Voice 12: in light of reconciliation

[0:46:57] Voice 12: mandated by the province

[0:46:58] Voice 12: that we must do our work in cooperation with First Nations, that is now

[0:47:02] Voice 12: showing up in a different way in 2025 than it did in

[0:47:06] Voice 12: 2021 and than it did in

[0:47:08] Voice 12: 1990 when

[0:47:10] Voice 12: First Nations were not even considered. So can you see that it is sort of a

[0:47:14] Voice 12: political evolution and where trust council sits is like do we want to put that forward or do you

[0:47:22] Voice 12: just want to let the policies stand to themselves the policies seem to work preambles are just

[0:47:27] Voice 12: preambles

[0:47:28] Voice 10: this is this is related um so the word amenity which is an object is not defined

[0:47:44] Voice 11: I think the

[0:47:47] Voice 10: trustees will know this better than I but I think it hasn't been the discussion about what unique amenities means consumed quite a bit of trust council time over this term or perhaps it was the previous term I may have my timeline on there and the indefinite or

[0:48:07] Voice 10: or in an inconclusive nature, I guess, of those conversations,

[0:48:12] Voice 10: meant it was going to be pretty challenging, I think,

[0:48:14] Voice 10: for Trust Council to land on a majority vote could carry the day,

[0:48:19] Voice 10: but I think Trust Council would have preferred to move forward

[0:48:22] Voice 10: with a consensus agreement.

[0:48:25] Voice 12: And I think also with that, along with a couple of other definitions,

[0:48:30] Voice 4: especially given feedback from government,

[0:48:32] Voice 4: they have had to fully paid to be interpreted by the Council over there.

[0:48:38] Voice 4: so by defining some of these items that are purposefully paid by the government

[0:48:44] Voice 4: to be determined by the council of the day if we were to put them in a definition we're vectoring

[0:48:50] Voice 4: the um future politicians which

[0:48:53] Voice 12: we are not that we're not permitted to do that

[0:48:57] Voice 12: it's a tricky one because it's a very large bucket into which a bunch of interpretations

[0:49:03] Voice 12: Like, I'll give you an example.

[0:49:05] Voice 12: Capriola has got wonderful sandstone formations, the galleries, right?

[0:49:09] Voice 12: That would be considered a unique amenities in Capriola.

[0:49:12] Voice 12: It's not the same as the geological formations of America, right?

[0:49:17] Voice 12: So there are some who argue that each island's expression of its uniqueness,

[0:49:23] Voice 12: those characteristics are unique amenities that equally deserve to be protected.

[0:49:28] Voice 12: So yes, there's Federation-wide unique amenities. Back in 1986 it was wild climate, I know miles of shoreline, these are all things that the islands have in common.

[0:49:39] Voice 12: But there's also very particular ones. And now that we're learning more from First Nations about their connection to the islands,

[0:49:47] Voice 12: those um the legacy and the heritage and the you know culturally modified trees and petroglyphs

[0:49:56] Voice 12: on gabriola are they not also unique amenities that predated us in the islands trust act but

[0:50:02] Voice 12: do they not also deserve protection that's sort of where our council is sitting with that question

[0:50:07] Voice 12: today

[0:50:08] Voice 14: so

[0:50:09] Voice 12: unique as i would say unique as each island there's broad it's very hard to make

[0:50:15] Voice 12: make a definition that encompasses all of the islands, but also the unique communities.

[0:50:21] Voice 10: What you just did was listed some unique amenities that can be used as examples to confirm what

[0:50:26] Voice 10: the definition actually is. My worry is leaving it out, leaving it out of the interpretation.

[0:50:33] Voice 10: Can it be devalued? It

[0:50:36] Voice 12: will always be.

[0:50:36] Voice 10: It makes it potentially irrelevant. I think it

[0:50:40] Voice 12: would always be a tough decision but let's go to um and thank you for your comments john thank you

[0:50:46] Voice 10: okay on this uh the fact that the word amenity which is conjecture in west bay is put before

[0:50:55] Voice 10: the environment because it itself sort of opens in a way uh especially if there's an

[0:51:01] Voice 10: electrical image in the valley to the turn i think

[0:51:05] Voice 10: most people have some sense of what

[0:51:07] Voice 10: of the natural environment and the environment of it,

[0:51:10] Voice 6: and

[0:51:10] Voice 10: how clear and so forth with that standard.

[0:51:14] Voice 10: And other came in and eventually it's whatever.

[0:51:18] Voice 10: But in planning terms might be a tennis court.

[0:51:27] Voice 10: It might be a golf course.

[0:51:29] Voice 10: It might be a disco golf course.

[0:51:31] Voice 10: It might be the fact that we have a shopping center.

[0:51:33] Voice 10: Those are wonderful amenities.

[0:51:34] Voice 10: Those are almost all of them are human

[0:51:37] Voice 3: identities.

[0:51:38] Voice 10: The examples you gave from the chair are natural identities, which are more in the environmental

[0:51:44] Voice 10: area of deserve and protect those features, I call those features rather than identities.

[0:51:51] Voice 10: An identity is something, when it's like that definition to me, it's something we can use.

[0:51:56] Voice 10: Yeah,

[0:51:56] Voice 11: I agree with you, it's tricky though because it's the word in the acts, we don't

[0:52:02] Voice 11: have totally changed but with

[0:52:07] Voice 10: absolutely no boundaries around what the word means

[0:52:11] Voice 10: it could mean anything and therefore it means nothing well

[0:52:16] Voice 12: i'll give you an example an inland

[0:52:18] Voice 12: midden that uh a nation um it's gonna look i'll take my community which is the territory

[0:52:27] Voice 12: territory, very barred, one of the largest in the entire coast area.

[0:52:33] Voice 12: So clearly, there's humans who use this area for harvesting shellfish and

[0:52:39] Voice 12: that's a human modification of the landscape.

[0:52:43] Voice 14: It

[0:52:44] Voice 12: just happens to predate us by a thousand years or more, right?

[0:52:49] Voice 12: So as we evolve in our relationships and our understanding of what protecting

[0:52:55] Voice 12: and preserve means today we are called to stretch beyond our traditional lens of ecological

[0:53:04] Voice 12: preservation which is i totally agree with you when the islands trust act was set up was primarily

[0:53:12] Voice 12: environmental focus to protect and preserve these precious islands but first nations were not

[0:53:17] Voice 12: included in that conversation so if we're going to look at what does unique amenities mean today

[0:53:23] Voice 12: there is a tension in interpreting it because if we have to look forward at what if we humans us

[0:53:30] Voice 12: folks who moved to the islands some of us 100 years ago some of us 40 years ago we have created

[0:53:38] Voice 12: spaces for human habitation and maybe those deserve protection maybe not but to the previous

[0:53:45] Voice 12: people who lived and moved on the islands the evidence of their relationship to the land and

[0:53:52] Voice 12: water is then also considered a unique matter these are very big questions that's why we've

[0:53:59] Voice 12: been wrestling with that and also from the legal perspective

[0:54:05] Voice 4: it is not just the environment that

[0:54:08] Voice 4: we're protecting protecting the communities that exist here as well so

[0:54:13] Voice 12: because we're charged with

[0:54:15] Voice 12: protection of communities as well as the environment we're

[0:54:19] Voice 4: balancing so we cannot say

[0:54:21] Voice 4: it's just natural environment because we're charged with protecting the environment. The

[0:54:27] Voice 4: environment includes the communities that's part of the difficulty in having an explicit definition

[0:54:37] Voice 4: of these things because the way that it was set up reading the minutes of um when in 1974 or 1973

[0:54:45] Voice 4: actually when this was being put forward it was protecting the way of life it was protecting the

[0:54:51] Voice 4: communities it was protecting the environment it was protecting the islands it was protecting the

[0:54:55] Voice 4: waters

[0:54:56] Voice 14: there

[0:54:58] Voice 4: was and we're still having the exact same discussions today so it's still relevant but

[0:55:03] Voice 4: it still holds that's

[0:55:06] Voice 12: tough it is it's a very different it's a please run for election next

[0:55:10] Voice 12: term it's

[0:55:11] Voice 4: like doing

[0:55:12] Voice 12: a tightrope walk on dental floss yeah so i so but point taken what i'm hearing

[0:55:20] Voice 12: is articulation of what do unique amenities mean today would be helpful um is that you know in a

[0:55:29] Voice 12: list in the glossary is that like a definitive list and then outside of that is not considered

[0:55:35] Voice 12: is it sort of a list of examples maybe that would help brain had this discussion and

[0:55:42] Voice 10: we've not gone

[0:55:42] Voice 12: we've gone down this road and we've been we were directed to pull

[0:55:47] Voice 4: it so so

[0:55:48] Voice 10: sorry you were directed

[0:55:50] Voice 10: well

[0:55:51] Voice 4: not directed but um there was um we

[0:55:55] Voice 12: can't really um yeah so my notes but was there ever

[0:55:59] Voice 12: at a point where a unique amenities was included in the glossary that you can think of i'm looking

[0:56:04] Voice 12: back at 2021 and

[0:56:05] Voice 10: i can't

[0:56:06] Voice 12: see because

[0:56:08] Voice 10: i think it coincided with the discussions the council

[0:56:11] Voice 12: council was having it did at the time so yeah that's i think because it was such such a big

[0:56:20] Voice 4: bucket it would be a document not a definition like

[0:56:26] Voice 12: yeah so if we if we look at the previous

[0:56:30] Voice 12: well and that's but

[0:56:32] Voice 12: we can't do that because

[0:56:35] Voice 10: okay one

[0:56:36] Voice 11: at a time a

[0:56:37] Voice 10: shared understanding of what the limits of that definition are

[0:56:42] Voice 10: And in fact, we know if it's in that bucket or not.

[0:56:45] Voice 12: Okay.

[0:56:46] Voice 12: Um, unfortunately, let's just,

[0:56:49] Voice 4: just let me, yeah, put it in, but I'm just going to respond.

[0:56:52] Voice 4: We've gone through this with the government and they said we cannot do it because it's

[0:56:56] Voice 4: part of the mandate, we cannot fetter, we cannot fetter politicians with a definition.

[0:57:04] Voice 12: They literally

[0:57:04] Voice 12: said it was a gift to the Islands Trust to not define what goes in that bucket.

[0:57:11] Voice 12: that it could be continually well no no it's like

[0:57:15] Voice 12: this was literally the conversation we had

[0:57:18] Voice 12: i was in the room it was in the day unique amenities meant this in this day it means this

[0:57:25] Voice 12: and in a future day it is actually up to each council and communities to continually define

[0:57:32] Voice 12: what deserves protection that's what's so

[0:57:35] Voice 12: scary i get it okay one

[0:57:37] Voice 1: at a time

[0:57:37] Voice 12: hold that and please i do want to get to your points but i've seen hands raised

[0:57:44] Voice 12: okay so let's do the water monica and then sirs um bruce bruce thank you

[0:57:52] Voice 12: jane heather i'm sorry it's been a while but it's been here okay okay monica go ahead yeah

[0:58:03] Voice 7: Yes, and I'm reading this on behalf of David Dreher, who is also on 11.3, but was not able to be here today.

[0:58:17] Voice 7: Guiding Principle 2.1.5, Application of the Proportionary Principle.

[0:58:25] Voice 7: Since guiding principle 2.1.5 states that all decisions are to be guided by the precautionary principle where there is scientific uncertainty over the potential for serious or irreversible damage in development,

[0:58:42] Voice 7: And since the proportionality principle requires shifting the burden of proof to the proponent

[0:58:50] Voice 7: of an activity, as defined in the glossary, would it be beneficial to incorporate reference

[0:58:56] Voice 7: to the proportionality principle into the directive policies to ensure its effective

[0:59:03] Voice 7: application?

[0:59:03] Voice 7: For example, Directive Policy 3.4.3 under Managing Growth and Development states,

[0:59:13] Voice 7: Consider the aesthetic, environmental, and social impacts of the development.

[0:59:20] Voice 7: Consideration might be given to supplementing that Directive Policy within the company name

[0:59:26] Voice 7: Directive Policy that states something to the effect.

[0:59:29] Voice 7: Where scientific uncertainty exists, whether a proposed development may result in serious or irreversible damage to an ecosystem or ecological relationships, require the developer to demonstrate that adequate steps have been incorporated into the development proposal to ensure that such damage will not result.

[0:59:54] Voice 7: especially given that Canada took the lead as its first...

[1:00:00] Voice 7: As first signatory of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, it is imperative not

[1:00:08] Voice 7: only that the precautionary principle be incorporated at all levels of government planning, but

[1:00:15] Voice 7: also that land use policies are articulated in such a way as to ensure that the precautionary

[1:00:23] Voice 7: principle receives more than lip service and is actively and effectively applied

[1:00:30] Voice 12: that's a great

[1:00:32] Voice 12: example yeah so good feedback um do you have any thoughts on that how would incorporating

[1:00:42] Voice 12: the precautionary principle in a more active way in policies i'm just going to ask from a

[1:00:50] Voice 12: from a planning perspective how how does that sit with um a policy that must be measured like

[1:00:58] Voice 12: does it give more surety when that policy is coming through yeah

[1:01:01] Voice 10: i would need to sit with it

[1:01:03] Voice 10: to sort of

[1:01:04] Voice 10: contemplate the wisdom or advisability of including it in here but if it gets to a theme

[1:01:10] Voice 10: that i'm that i'm already hearing sort of through some questions and comments which is the level of

[1:01:16] Voice 10: specificity in the document versus the level of sort of interpretive openness that we allow like

[1:01:21] Voice 10: how does trust council want to use this document to make decisions it you know if one were to

[1:01:29] Voice 10: include a policy such as that it makes it very clear what trust council's expectations are upon

[1:01:35] Voice 10: a development applicant and is is that what trust council wants or does it want more latitude in its

[1:01:42] Voice 10: ability to make decisions, to be able to land more on a community interest type decision

[1:01:51] Voice 10: versus one informed by absolute scientific or biological certainty about what an outcome

[1:01:57] Voice 10: might be.

[1:01:59] Voice 12: It is

[1:02:01] Voice 4: in 215, it is part of the Trust Council's guiding principles that apply to all decisions.

[1:02:08] Voice 4: So you take

[1:02:10] Voice 12: that into account with all of the rest of the document, because it's one

[1:02:17] Voice 12: of the top guiding principles, it's one of the guiding principles, it's 2.5.

[1:02:24] Voice 12: Well and this is, also we haven't got to an implementation on it, so how will the policies

[1:02:35] Voice 12: be evaluated. So I want to go back to that point of where irreversible damage could exist,

[1:02:43] Voice 12: that policy would stipulate these are the steps that the proponent needs to take to

[1:02:49] Voice 12: ensure that they are mitigating those potentially irreversible impacts. And I would say that

[1:02:55] Voice 12: is something for the implementation. How is that policy implemented? And that's why I

[1:03:01] Voice 12: kind of wanted the planner perspective because we're wrestling with that right now is is it good

[1:03:06] Voice 12: enough to just have a checklist and say well the aesthetic environmental and social impacts of

[1:03:13] Voice 12: development were considered but like it doesn't embed that precautionary principle in mitigating

[1:03:20] Voice 12: those potential impacts so it's can you fit that in every single policy or was it better to just

[1:03:26] Voice 12: have a guiding principle like we said off the top that informs all those policies and then

[1:03:32] Voice 12: through your implementation plan it articulates what it's going to look like for yes or no at

[1:03:39] Voice 12: least that test it's a great example i love that um we do i want to go to first-time speakers first

[1:03:46] Voice 12: uh bruce thanks hi

[1:03:48] Voice 2: there um bruce mcconkey um i've served two terms as a trustee and

[1:03:53] Voice 2: determined within that probably the two worst words to have been put into the object and that

[1:04:00] Voice 2: That was unique amenities, because we've been arguing about that since 1974, basically, and through my terms there, that was constantly on.

[1:04:08] Voice 2: What it did do is it opened up for new trustees with very little experience, and then the old crusty trustees with lots of experience could not even agree on what those meant.

[1:04:19] Voice 2: But it did open up to what's happening right now is the fact that we are not putting the protection of the environment as a number one overriding goal because it gets diluted by using unique amenities because then everyone has their own opinion of what those are.

[1:04:36] Voice 2: If I can just use a little bit of an analogy, I've been working with coastal communities up and down the coast here for a number of years with regards to the huge increase in use of our waters for anchoring of bulk carriers from the Port of Vancouver, basically an overflow parking lot.

[1:04:54] Voice 2: And in determining our greatest arguments to go forward, what always supported us was our number one goal of protecting the environment above all else.

[1:05:05] Voice 2: When new communities came online, their first arguments against them were, oh, I don't like the noise, I don't like the lights.

[1:05:13] Voice 2: sure that's fine but that can that argument can be thrown away kind of thing because the bottom

[1:05:20] Voice 2: line we said is that protection of the environment takes precedence over all of our discussions

[1:05:25] Voice 2: and that has helped us actually achieve some at least some baby steps in in helping get rid of

[1:05:32] Voice 2: these anchorages now coming back to our communities if you sit at the table and you're making land use

[1:05:39] Voice 2: decisions which is what local trustees do if you're making those decisions your highest priority

[1:05:44] Voice 2: is the protection and preservation of the environment because everything that if you do

[1:05:49] Voice 2: that first and everything that comes underneath that okay you make your decisions based on that

[1:05:55] Voice 2: indigenous rights all of those things follow naturally with work with regards to that with

[1:06:00] Voice 2: your lens being preserving and protecting going forward because otherwise what creeps in here and

[1:06:06] Voice 2: And what I'm seeing in this document is a little bit of where, well, maybe accommodation housing can be on equal footing when you're considering everything.

[1:06:15] Voice 2: Well, then all of a sudden, that's where you get into problems with regards.

[1:06:19] Voice 2: You've got a community impetus that says, oh, we want more housing, more affordable housing, which has been an argument that's been going on since this first trustee, that kind of a thing.

[1:06:30] Voice 2: That argument continues.

[1:06:31] Voice 2: years but i think critically in this is is the idea that that and the protection of the

[1:06:39] Voice 2: environment should take precedence over any other further decisions so it's just my comment on

[1:06:44] Voice 2: this when you're developing this this form

[1:06:47] Voice 4: yeah i was going to say thank you very much that is um

[1:06:51] Voice 4: very valid points um and definitely something we can try to do here as a land use body um

[1:06:58] Voice 4: um with like zoning finals and land use finals that we are directed to do yes we do look at

[1:07:07] Voice 4: the environmental impacts and we've focused really hard on making sure that the environmental

[1:07:13] Voice 4: aspects in this document have priority and we

[1:07:18] Voice 12: use the word prioritize in there as well

[1:07:20] Voice 12: um which is it and you know like we said before this is a unique governing body

[1:07:28] Voice 12: in what we approach it with so like i said that type of book is uh is uh definitely unique to

[1:07:40] Voice 12: anywhere else so thank you yeah it's a very interesting challenge as a decision maker

[1:07:53] Voice 12: because you do have to keep an open mind the requirement as a decision maker is that you

[1:07:59] Voice 12: make a decision based on all the information that is brought toward you so those guiding principles

[1:08:05] Voice 12: they are let's say the frame that is informing my approach but the material on which i'm

[1:08:13] Voice 12: facing a decision is what's in front of me today and

[1:08:17] Voice 9: it

[1:08:19] Voice 12: isn't always possible to move

[1:08:21] Voice 12: environmental protection first why

[1:08:24] Voice 14: not because

[1:08:25] Voice 12: we have land use planning um layouts and zones

[1:08:33] Voice 12: that were laid out before the owners trust act was implemented we have lots that already fragment

[1:08:39] Voice 12: forest ecosystems so we're kind of working with what is left what do we protect and preserve and

[1:08:45] Voice 12: i agree with you placing a priority on environmental protection should be the first filter

[1:08:52] Voice 12: it is not always possible to say that is the only consideration um so because we're working

[1:09:02] Voice 12: in an imperfect context in which a lot of damage has already been done so sometimes why is it not

[1:09:07] Voice 12: rehabilitating restoring can we put that um mandate on landowners that before you

[1:09:14] Voice 12: you know bring your proposal for another density that you've got to restore the ecosystem

[1:09:21] Voice 12: system around you like it's we're working with a lot of different factors and it's not always

[1:09:28] Voice 12: possible to say the environment takes precedence over everything could

[1:09:31] Voice 2: you give an example of that

[1:09:33] Voice 2: because okay so you say land fragmented you've got some some lots that have been laid out before

[1:09:40] Voice 2: except but when you have to approve a subdivision okay do you want to have a subdivision but hold

[1:09:47] Voice 2: on here we can make rules for that subdivision to protect the environment

[1:09:53] Voice 12: We can set the criteria for what does the community want to see.

[1:09:59] Voice 12: For instance, requiring all those dwelling units have fresh water sources.

[1:10:09] Voice 12: Thank you.

[1:10:10] Voice 12: That can be a requirement that we put on.

[1:10:12] Voice 12: We cannot design the layout.

[1:10:15] Voice 12: I'm

[1:10:15] Voice 2: not talking about that.

[1:10:16] Voice 2: I'm talking about the ability to have a number of lots being built on.

[1:10:22] Voice 3: Right.

[1:10:22] Voice 2: And you make your bylaws such that like the setbacks from the sea type bylaws, recognizing the environment is the number one goal here, not the fact that someone wants to build closer to the ocean, because they want to see the ocean more.

[1:10:38] Voice 2: Okay, and there's that pressure of development with regards

[1:10:41] Voice 2: to being face that but if you're, you're overriding factor is the environment, then I can't see how the other arguments would.

[1:10:50] Voice 2: Yeah,

[1:10:51] Voice 12: I've been doing a lot of things. Let me come back to you on that, to come up with a specific example, because I don't want to water down your point of view that the environment is a lens first, makes all the other considerations much simpler, right?

[1:11:04] Voice 12: Right. And that is the primary focus of the trust. It was set up to protect and preserve

[1:11:09] Voice 12: the environment, the trust area, and the unique amenities. The problem is there's three factors

[1:11:14] Voice 12: in there, things that need to be preserved and protected. And the environment is one,

[1:11:19] Voice 12: the trust area is a geographic area, and unique amenities is another one. Is it all strictly

[1:11:25] Voice 12: environmental or are there cultural elements? If there are cultural elements, is it just

[1:11:30] Voice 12: our culture or is it indigenous people's culture that also must be protected and preserved but

[1:11:35] Voice 12: still an active conversation in which you evaluate every time you come to a decision

[1:11:43] Voice 12: will this protect the environment is this going to uphold the mandate of trust

[1:11:48] Voice 12: does this honor indigenous people's desires to keep their cultural heritage protected

[1:11:52] Voice 12: does this honor the property owner's rights to have an administratively fair process with

[1:11:58] Voice 12: everything laid out there's a lot of different criteria that come into play with making decisions

[1:12:02] Voice 12: as we know we've been in this role but it's never as simple as the environment comes first

[1:12:08] Voice 12: only but i will think of an example because there's a country that's lately

[1:12:13] Voice 12: going to sort of throw in here as well the fact that we are set up as a land use governing body

[1:12:20] Voice 12: in and of itself indicates that we are here under the mandate to slow development versus

[1:12:31] Voice 12: stop development. So this was environment first in every decision growth would have stopped.

[1:12:39] Voice 4: So if it's environment only and we're making land use decisions for that then any variance

[1:12:48] Voice 4: that came to us if it was environment only considerations then variances would be turned

[1:12:54] Voice 4: down because you'd be having a bigger footprint or whatever it was if there would be and there

[1:12:59] Voice 4: would be some environmental impact so whenever there is environmental impact if we have to

[1:13:06] Voice 4: say environment first and that's our only lens that we're looking through then that has

[1:13:16] Voice 4: has a different effect on how we make decisions but we are charged with preserving and protecting

[1:13:27] Voice 4: these areas also for the benefit of the residents and the benefit of the residents comes through

[1:13:32] Voice 4: the protections of the of the natural environment as well as in some cases protections for free

[1:13:40] Voice 4: simple ownership and the ability to live on the land in those type of health places so there's

[1:13:47] Voice 4: a lot of things we have to take into consideration but the lens through which these decisions are

[1:13:53] Voice 4: made always is looked with an environment or an environmental viewpoint as well whereas in

[1:14:03] Voice 4: other jurisdictions that's not necessarily

[1:14:05] Voice 4: the case although a lot more are starting but

[1:14:09] Voice 4: but we're, yeah, that's all.

[1:14:15] Voice 12: Heather, first time speaker,

[1:14:17] Voice 12: and then I thought I

[1:14:18] Voice 11: saw you back here.

[1:14:20] Voice 11: I've got a list.

[1:14:21] Voice 12: You've got the list, thank you.

[1:14:22] Voice 12: You can leave it

[1:14:22] Voice 12: for us, we can learn a little bit.

[1:14:24] Voice 12: Yes, let's go.

[1:14:25] Voice 12: Thanks.

[1:14:26] Voice 12: Well, let's keep coming back to this.

[1:14:28] Voice 12: It's a really good point,

[1:14:29] Voice 12: and I do appreciate your experience in this.

[1:14:32] Voice 12: Like we need to have that lens of how we got to here,

[1:14:36] Voice 12: and is this the shift, or is this, yeah.

[1:14:44] Voice 12: This is a simple question, but it's not about the process that's already happened, it's

[1:14:50] Voice 12: about the process that's going forward, and that

[1:14:53] Voice 12: is the survey.

[1:14:54] Voice 12: And I'm curious about the number 26, which

[1:15:00] Voice 8: you get to at the very end of the survey,

[1:15:02] Voice 8: and it gives you categories to place yourself.

[1:15:05] Voice 8: So I'm not sure that this is how our elections are made out,

[1:15:10] Voice 12: but I think there are different ones to give.

[1:15:12] Voice 12: So it gives you the part-time resident,

[1:15:15] Voice 12: the full-time resident, a visitor,

[1:15:17] Voice 12: a non-resident property owner living

[1:15:21] Voice 7: adjacent to the region,

[1:15:23] Voice 7: Indigenous person with relationships to the trust

[1:15:26] Voice 7: areas, or other.

[1:15:28] Voice 7: There is no category that you want

[1:15:30] Voice 7: to put other, which is ridiculous in this case.

[1:15:33] Voice 7: What

[1:15:34] Voice 8: about full-time property owners?

[1:15:37] Voice 12: Well, not there.

[1:15:38] Voice 12: Not there.

[1:15:39] Voice 12: And I would say that that is an important category to know

[1:15:46] Voice 12: and wondering what weight these categories

[1:15:51] Voice 8: will be given

[1:15:53] Voice 8: when the survey is interpreted.

[1:15:55] Voice 8: So

[1:15:56] Voice 10: you're suggesting that full-time residents should be broken

[1:15:59] Voice 10: into full-time renter versus full-time renter?

[1:16:02] Voice 12: I would think so.

[1:16:03] Voice 12: myself. Yeah. So I just want to understand the full time I'm

[1:16:08] Voice 12: strolling through the surfboard.

[1:16:21] Voice 11: Okay,

[1:16:23] Voice 12: so I'm a part time resident, I'm a full time

[1:16:26] Voice 12: resident. So you're asking why it's not saying property owner?

[1:16:32] Voice 12: Well, there is a category for a non resident property owner.

[1:16:35] Voice 12: They could be called visitors, I suppose.

[1:16:39] Voice 12: Why can't they be property owners?

[1:16:43] Voice 12: Why does my opinion carry a little bit more weight

[1:16:47] Voice 12: than visitors?

[1:16:50] Voice 12: For example, possibly indigenous.

[1:16:54] Voice 11: We

[1:16:55] Voice 12: could be assumed to be owners of this.

[1:17:00] Voice 14: So

[1:17:00] Voice 12: how are we evaluating the weight

[1:17:03] Voice 12: between the different survey responses. Can you speak to that at all?

[1:17:09] Voice 10: Yeah, at this point, I don't imagine. So we would likely simply present this information

[1:17:18] Voice 10: as the answers that we received. Like, here is who responded to this survey. This many

[1:17:25] Voice 10: part-time residents, this many people identified as full-time residents. I don't anticipate we are

[1:17:29] Voice 10: going to do a depth of analysis that will correlate type of resident to responses received

[1:17:40] Voice 10: if you know what I mean like that full-time residents answered this question this way while

[1:17:45] Voice 10: visitors answered the same question this way they don't think we're going to go down that

[1:17:51] Voice 10: that level this is more just to demonstrate who actually took the time to answer the survey

[1:17:56] Voice 10: it yeah

[1:17:58] Voice 12: because it's 36 000 people who live in the islands but it's also a mandate um on the

[1:18:08] Voice 12: attention of um we are expected to uh create these policies that don't just respond to

[1:18:23] Voice 12: any one set of concerns like you as a resident property owner have your interests that is

[1:18:31] Voice 12: hopefully heard through the ltc and then fed back through the referral process how are the residents

[1:18:37] Voice 12: and property owners of south pender affected or their opinions and views on it this is the

[1:18:45] Voice 12: opportunity to tell us i would say that probably carries more weight as a referral response from

[1:18:50] Voice 12: a community you show up here today and you're telling us what you think um we as trustees can

[1:18:59] Voice 12: bring that back to the table and say this is how it's going to affect the social community the

[1:19:03] Voice 12: survey i think just gives us an idea of the demographics of who's responding and the general

[1:19:08] Voice 12: trend probably going to be less valuable information than this meeting today so

[1:19:14] Voice 8: letters

[1:19:14] Voice 12: are great yeah because especially if they articulate i have a problem with this policy

[1:19:20] Voice 12: because that right there's people who are like i don't like the document it's too confusing

[1:19:25] Voice 12: that doesn't help us like make it better please give us really good feedback is

[1:19:31] Voice 12: is the hope but thank you for that um

[1:19:36] Voice 12: Susan Taylor by Jenningsville Runs.

[1:19:47] Voice 12: I share, I certainly share

[1:19:50] Voice 11: the concern that's already been discussed about unique amenities

[1:19:55] Voice 11: and the absence of the definition.

[1:19:59] Voice 14: I

[1:20:00] Voice 11: think with definitions in documents such as this, I fear for the meaningfulness of

[1:20:07] Voice 11: the document as a whole. One of the other, in addition to unique amenities, which for me is

[1:20:14] Voice 11: a key

[1:20:16] Voice 12: definition of unique amenities. One other definition that I think is missing

[1:20:24] Voice 12: is the phrase used by Jason in your introduction, which was a suitable location for housing

[1:20:33] Voice 12: same alternatives. Unless I'm missing something that is not in the glossary, is not defined,

[1:20:43] Voice 12: and is wide open to interpretation by the elected officials of the day, let me consider.

[1:20:53] Voice 12: Super. So suitable location for housing alternatives.

[1:20:58] Voice 12: You're not going to like my answer, which is it's really going to depend on the community.

[1:21:05] Voice 12: um so is suitable locations and and that's where we get into what is practical and defining a

[1:21:16] Voice 12: policy document that is supposed to suit all communities you know be be broad enough to

[1:21:22] Voice 12: represent uh reality trust as a federation so that when an ocp comes in from gabriel i'll use

[1:21:30] Voice 12: my community um in which gabrielle let's say has decided no more subdivisions they're the

[1:21:37] Voice 12: most harmful form of development because we're going through a review um they want to see small

[1:21:43] Voice 12: clusters and i've had multiple young people my age okay i'm still calling myself young sorry um

[1:21:51] Voice 12: you know they want to live together intergenerationally um on what is for them

[1:21:58] Voice 12: The land is a form of clear cut property, it was clear cut 40 years ago, they have no control over that, they are asking for policies that support small developments where appropriate.

[1:22:13] Voice 12: They're also building ponds for catchment areas, they're also regenerating forests.

[1:22:17] Voice 12: it. So my community is looking at what are the zoning options that can go in our OCP

[1:22:25] Voice 12: that are suitable for development and are not suitable for development. And that's how

[1:22:31] Voice 12: you evaluate land use planning. Where do you direct the development rather than the market

[1:22:36] Voice 12: just driving it, which is subdivision, single family dwellings. Where do we want to direct

[1:22:43] Voice 12: it where it's appropriate and i think that is a

[1:22:45] Voice 12: decision for each ltc and so i agree with you

[1:22:50] Voice 12: that that suitable land is very vague and it's tough and but i i think the place to define it

[1:22:58] Voice 12: is through the mapping and the work in your own communities as a p of development to the zones

[1:23:04] Voice 12: so this large policy just says you should have some zones in which

[1:23:12] Voice 12: land that is suitable for development is directed that way so that it protects the land that is not

[1:23:17] Voice 12: suitable for development that has that you know forest ecosystem you want to maintain

[1:23:23] Voice 12: um intact kind of thing and

[1:23:26] Voice 4: an LTC area may have no area

[1:23:31] Voice 12: that's suitable for that

[1:23:32] Voice 4: And that is then, well,

[1:23:38] Voice 11: that's tricky.

[1:23:41] Voice 11: You

[1:23:41] Voice 12: can look at 3.4.11.

[1:23:44] Voice 12: Yeah.

[1:23:45] Voice 12: And

[1:23:45] Voice 11: what would you say after?

[1:23:47] Voice 11: 3.4.11 uses the word shall.

[1:23:54] Voice 8: Local

[1:23:55] Voice 11: trust communities and island municipalities shall, in all OCP buttons,

[1:24:02] Voice 11: require the trust council review

[1:24:04] Voice 12: or identify suitable locations

[1:24:10] Voice 12: It's not sure, it's shy, and this suggests to me that the definition of suitable location

[1:24:22] Voice 12: is open to interpretation by the elected officials of the day and can require from term to term.

[1:24:31] Voice 12: And I still believe that suitable locations, in my view, need to take the environment into

[1:24:39] Voice 12: into concern in the first instance

[1:24:42] Voice 4: and the guiding principles at the beginning

[1:24:46] Voice 4: the cautionary principle the mandate all of those apply to each and every one of these

[1:24:54] Voice 4: so it's not you're not taking this out of context you're taking it through the lens of and

[1:25:08] Voice 4: And the fact that this says that you shall take a look at whether or not there are any suitable areas, you may not find one, and you're correct.

[1:25:20] Voice 4: One LTC may say, fair or none. Another LTC may say, based on new information and the request that's come forward, what might be suitable is this.

[1:25:33] Voice 4: this, or another LTC may say, you know, based on the change of the day, now it may be something

[1:25:39] Voice 4: else.

[1:25:42] Voice 4: It depends on, like, I

[1:25:44] Voice 12: would say those criteria will be set in your resume.

[1:25:46] Voice 12: Exactly.

[1:25:47] Voice 12: So I want to turn to Jason, because we have been having a conversation about this, like,

[1:25:54] Voice 12: is it appropriate to have a directed policy for every LTC that you show identify locations

[1:26:00] Voice 12: patients that are suitable for increased density or should that be advisory so that's an active

[1:26:06] Voice 12: conversation and you may give us feedback to take back but maybe it's not appropriate for every

[1:26:11] Voice 12: LTC but thoughts on that how does that go up yeah

[1:26:15] Voice 10: what I was actually going to touch on was

[1:26:17] Voice 10: was how suitable land could potentially be identified and so this is some work that's

[1:26:22] Voice 10: happening at the staff level right now as we try and develop an appropriate analytical tool that

[1:26:27] Voice 10: want to use to diagnose or assess suitability and it basically involves taking the math layers of

[1:26:34] Voice 10: all of the things that we've said we're going to attack and figuring out like what's if we are

[1:26:41] Voice 10: going to protect garyo ecosystems and if we're going to protect critical habitat for species

[1:26:47] Voice 10: at risk and if they're going to protect indigenous harvesting areas and you put all those

[1:26:52] Voice 10: math layers together presuming you have that information it shows you at the end what land

[1:26:57] Voice 10: land on the island is actually left that isn't sort of identified as being of critical importance

[1:27:04] Voice 10: to preserve or protect the things that you said you're going to preserve or protect elsewhere in

[1:27:08] Voice 10: the document so this is this is something that that a bunch of staff are working on right now

[1:27:13] Voice 10: fine-tuning to see whether it is an appropriate way to make decisions um it's a decision support

[1:27:20] Voice 10: tool i guess is what you would call it to help trustees make an assessment of what they might

[1:27:25] Voice 10: want to consider suitable that but as the chair said it doesn't make the decision for it right it's

[1:27:33] Voice 12: i'm encouraged to hear you say that jason that this work is underway

[1:27:39] Voice 12: my overriding concern about the entire document as in the absence of definitions or these important

[1:27:46] Voice 12: phrases that are used within the statement the statement is in my view not terribly meaningful

[1:27:57] Voice 12: it's welcome to policy development like how to actually be descriptive of what you want to

[1:28:07] Voice 12: protect what is the goal of each policy without being prescriptive because each community still

[1:28:16] Voice 12: needs the autonomy to interpret it in the light of their community priorities how they've developed

[1:28:23] Voice 12: how their OCP sits. So there is a relationship between the policy needing to be quite general

[1:28:32] Voice 12: and then each OCP interprets it in light of their community priorities. But I agree with you,

[1:28:41] Voice 12: maybe suitable land is not the best definition. And

[1:28:45] Voice 12: it's actually is kind of a conversation that

[1:28:47] Voice 12: is that offensive to Indigenous peoples calling lands that they consider their homelands and they

[1:28:54] Voice 12: want to return to, that suitable for development? That kind of has not a great connotation. So I

[1:29:01] Voice 12: take your point that maybe suitable land isn't the term that we're looking for.

[1:29:06] Voice 12: It's the action that this is seeking to address is when there's development pressure,

[1:29:14] Voice 12: pressure what's the criteria that describes where it should go and should not and in some islands

[1:29:22] Voice 12: maybe you don't want any more development right and so maybe you don't want a policy that says

[1:29:29] Voice 12: there should be identified suitable lands that are more suitable for development and not

[1:29:34] Voice 12: you see what i mean we're struggling with that i i'm not saying that this is a perfect document

[1:29:40] Voice 12: I'm not saying we should have suitable locations or suitable lens.

[1:29:43] Voice 12: How do you describe like clear-cut areas only, right? But using the mapping and the tools that

[1:29:53] Voice 12: we're developing, some are more advanced on some islands than others, and we're seeing that play

[1:29:58] Voice 12: I don't want to keep.

[1:30:00] Voice 12: referring to Gabriola, but it's because we're in an OCC review, because we've got the groundwater

[1:30:06] Voice 12: mapping and methodology and sort of the pilot projects being Gabriola, we're going to get that

[1:30:11] Voice 12: in February. And that identifies where are the critical recharge areas. We do not want to put

[1:30:19] Voice 12: a subdivision there, right? Because subdivision means more driveways, septic fields, means houses.

[1:30:27] Voice 12: is and you cut it off then you're reducing the amount of forest and reducing the amount of

[1:30:33] Voice 12: percolation in the ground so that's kind of the relationship between science telling us where the

[1:30:40] Voice 12: groundwater recharge areas are and trying to define well where is it suitable to develop

[1:30:46] Voice 12: and where do you not want to that's not good but it is sometimes a good point that it's very general

[1:30:55] Voice 12: and it's maybe not useful we had any more first-time speakers i don't know where i go to

[1:31:01] Voice 12: your second um we had uh dab she just walked out the door she had a matter that she wanted

[1:31:07] Voice 4: okay

[1:31:08] Voice 12: that'd be right yeah um so she uh i'm sure she wanted this

[1:31:16] Voice 12: she left i

[1:31:18] Voice 11: mean she walked out with

[1:31:19] Voice 12: her phone but i sure maybe

[1:31:21] Voice 11: let's just wait and see

[1:31:22] Voice 12: it's almost an hour maybe we can take a break after we've heard one more comment and give

[1:31:28] Voice 12: Debbie a chance to come back so um the

[1:31:32] Voice 4: next first time to speak did you throw your hand up to speak

[1:31:37] Voice 4: yeah yeah the next

[1:31:39] Voice 4: first time speaking and then I've got uh Frank and then Paul

[1:31:45] Voice 12: so a few things I wanted to comment on which are likely going to be inflammatory but

[1:31:51] Voice 12: The Land Act, so again, there's the lactose definition to amenity. So that's

[1:31:58] Voice 12: 3.1.3. So that's an example of peer engagement with Indigenous government bodies about, you know, Land Acts, but not limited to amenity contribution and application seeking additional development.

[1:32:14] Voice 12: So again, what does that mean?

[1:32:17] Voice 11: Yeah, let's

[1:32:17] Voice 12: have a conversation about that.

[1:32:18] Voice 12: Right. It has no meaning.

[1:32:24] Voice 12: Well, so I want to turn to the planner.

[1:32:27] Voice 12: I didn't want to go back over because I think we've already exhausted the fact that we are troubled by the lack of definition for amenity contributions.

[1:32:36] Voice 12: And that's an example that that particular provision has no meaning.

[1:32:41] Voice 12: Well, actually, amenity contribution is different than defining unique amenities in the policy statement.

[1:32:46] Voice 12: So I do want to turn to the planners and ask about this.

[1:32:51] Voice 12: So if there is a rezoning, let's say, a landowner has,

[1:32:58] Voice 14: I'm

[1:33:00] Voice 12: going to think of an example that's not fresh in my mind.

[1:33:03] Voice 12: It's a challenging one.

[1:33:06] Voice 12: It's very common to, in urban context, but it has been done in all

[1:33:11] Voice 12: islands, to get extra density, to get extra development potential.

[1:33:16] Voice 12: a landowner who wants to subdivide the land will give an amenity contribution to the community.

[1:33:23] Voice 12: Especially in the form of a park.

[1:33:25] Voice 12: It's a park, it could be a road. So a recent one was a large development on Gabriola.

[1:33:31] Voice 12: The amenity contribution was finishing a road that connected one part of the island to the other.

[1:33:38] Voice 12: And so that is something that benefits the community. It's an amenity, it's a contribution.

[1:33:42] Voice 12: It does not necessarily pay for the extra densities they're getting, but it sweetens

[1:33:48] Voice 12: the deal so that the community goes, okay, in return for 20 lots, we get a road, that's

[1:33:53] Voice 12: great.

[1:33:54] Voice 12: What this is referring to is that if a developer is going to do this kind of contribution,

[1:34:02] Voice 12: can Indigenous governing bodies not also be considered?

[1:34:06] Voice 12: And why would they have priority over the community?

[1:34:12] Voice 12: Let's just go with self-pandering then.

[1:34:14] Voice 12: Somebody has a larger property,

[1:34:16] Voice 12: they're going to put out, they're going to self-divide it.

[1:34:20] Voice 12: Why necessarily would First Nations get priority

[1:34:25] Voice 12: over the rest of self-pandering?

[1:34:28] Voice 12: It doesn't say priority.

[1:34:30] Voice 12: It says engagement.

[1:34:32] Voice 12: Support opportunities to direct land

[1:34:36] Voice 12: to Indigenous governing bodies,

[1:34:38] Voice 12: including but not limited to as many contributions.

[1:34:41] Voice 12: contributions, it's not a requirement. And again, this is an advisory policy, so it is not required

[1:34:49] Voice 12: that South Pender LTC, if this is adopted tomorrow, and South Pender LTC says we're going to go

[1:34:56] Voice 12: through an OCP review next year, there's no requirement to include this advisory policy.

[1:35:02] Voice 12: No, I understand that, that it is advisory. I'm just pointing out that the, let's just say somebody

[1:35:09] Voice 12: wanted to do that, they would probably be more favorably met by Owens Trust, the executive,

[1:35:16] Voice 12: because it was going to First Nations. And I'm wondering why you just don't have fear of the

[1:35:22] Voice 12: community. Why should First Nations have the priority getting the gift property or the gift

[1:35:29] Voice 12: amenity?

[1:35:30] Voice 8: I think that's

[1:35:30] Voice 12: up to the community to decide whether they want that policy

[1:35:33] Voice 12: policy or not. I mean, traditionally, any community

[1:35:37] Voice 12: has only just gone to community. What this policy is signaling, and I agree it's a signal

[1:35:48] Voice 12: of an intention,

[1:35:49] Voice 14: is

[1:35:50] Voice 12: to respond to First Nations and Indigenous values that are saying, well,

[1:35:54] Voice 12: can we also be considered as you're considering benefits to your community, benefits to the

[1:36:01] Voice 12: The first nation relationship, but it wouldn't be up to the LTC to embed that in their OCP or not, but I agree

[1:36:11] Voice 12: that the title of that has been 12 yeah because it's causing a lot of yeah Jason yeah

[1:36:18] Voice 10: maybe maybe just pick up piggyback on that charity.

[1:36:20] Voice 10: if in order for this policy to be operationalized in the way that we're talking about specifically

[1:36:25] Voice 10: a community amenity contribution at the time of rezoning it would need to be embedded within your

[1:36:32] Voice 10: official community plan to guide the decision making of your local trust committee like

[1:36:36] Voice 10: community amenity contributions aren't supposed to be kind of a one-off they're not

[1:36:40] Voice 10: you know yeah

[1:36:41] Voice 10: they're not random so i can only i can only use the salt spring ocp as an example because it's

[1:36:45] Voice 10: the one i'm most familiar with where there is you know a schedule in the back about community

[1:36:50] Voice 10: amenity contributions that is an official part of the document and it says after some some preamble

[1:36:56] Voice 10: verbiage the following types of community amenity contributions will be considered by the local

[1:37:01] Voice 10: trust committee and it sets out things like parks and community gardens and other recreational

[1:37:06] Voice 10: facilities sidewalks and that list could include land return to indigenous bodies if the local

[1:37:14] Voice 10: trust committee decided to want to do that right

[1:37:18] Voice 4: that could be that could be a rewarding of this

[1:37:20] Voice 4: section um as an idea consideration

[1:37:22] Voice 12: considerations um so it could that could help clarify some of the

[1:37:28] Voice 12: yeah and there's some considerations like land back is a political term and it does cause concern

[1:37:39] Voice 12: if you're just reading that as oh that's return of land to first nations well it's actually not

[1:37:44] Voice 12: what the policy is talking about so i think the title of it i think that's what you said

[1:37:49] Voice 12: That was your comment, though, about returning to First Nations.

[1:37:53] Voice 12: But it is subject to, as Jason said, the community's OCP,

[1:37:57] Voice 12: which is what the community has established.

[1:38:00] Voice 12: That's not a random decision by your decision makers of the day.

[1:38:04] Voice 12: It is still in trying and can only be activated when your policy is updated.

[1:38:11] Voice 12: And at that point, the community can consider,

[1:38:14] Voice 12: do we want to add return of land to Indigenous governing bodies?

[1:38:19] Voice 12: or not like that's the community has that power through its own system to say that's not enough

[1:38:26] Voice 12: influence or it is okay um my other question is that trust council's guiding principle and

[1:38:34] Voice 12: actually it's the first one that's listed under general planning disciplines okay jade is that

[1:38:39] Voice 12: real understanding of the history of the nike city the colonialism in the island's trust area

[1:38:47] Voice 12: So then go to the definitions, we can't help but think that this is pretty harsh, that

[1:38:55] Voice 12: we're going back in time now, probably 200 years, when we're talking about colonialism.

[1:39:04] Voice 12: Colonizers are groups of people or countries that come to a new place or country and steal

[1:39:08] Voice 12: the land and

[1:39:10] Voice 4: resources from indigenous peoples and develop a set of laws and public processes

[1:39:15] Voice 12: that are designed to violate the human rights of the Indigenous people, violently suppresses

[1:39:22] Voice 12: the government, legal, social, and cultural structure of Indigenous people, etc., etc.,

[1:39:28] Voice 12: historical and ongoing colonialism, including the distribution of lands, and the devastating

[1:39:36] Voice 12: impact on Indigenous people and communities.

[1:39:38] Voice 12: So,

[1:39:39] Voice 14: I

[1:39:40] Voice 12: think that that is very updated to bring in our definition of this.

[1:39:49] Voice 12: 1982, which is Constitution Act, which is federal, Canada, that's when with our Charter

[1:39:56] Voice 12: of Rights and Freedoms, Indigenous rights are being recognized.

[1:39:59] Voice 12: That's 1982.

[1:40:00] Voice 12: me too we have made progress in the last 200 years and i'm not saying things weren't absolutely done

[1:40:09] Voice 12: wrong wrong wrong

[1:40:10] Voice 12: but progress has some progress has been made and just my further point that i'd

[1:40:17] Voice 12: like to make with that is i know that nowadays when you look through the lens of the map you

[1:40:23] Voice 8: You know,

[1:40:23] Voice 12: they see the Douglas tree in 1850.

[1:40:27] Voice 12: Okay, that was a bad deal for First Nations.

[1:40:31] Voice 12: But when that deal was struck with 1850 by James Douglas

[1:40:37] Voice 12: on behalf of Hudson's Bay Company in Great Britain,

[1:40:40] Voice 12: I mean, they were working to get some treaties.

[1:40:47] Voice 12: They were doing what they could.

[1:40:49] Voice 12: They weren't actually stealing.

[1:40:50] Voice 12: they were getting agreements with First Nations of course when we look at it now

[1:40:55] Voice 12: see if that was a bad deal but all I'm saying is I think that this this is when

[1:41:01] Voice 12: you read it with your guiding principles you're not acknowledging any progress at

[1:41:06] Voice 12: all we're going back in time 200 years and I think that's pretty harsh to put

[1:41:12] Voice 12: down in this document so that's my I hear you that's my opinion and I think

[1:41:18] Voice 12: I think we'll let it stay as your opinion.

[1:41:21] Voice 12: I will state that Islands Trust has a commitment

[1:41:26] Voice 12: to reconciliation and made a declaration of its commitment

[1:41:29] Voice 12: to continue learning and walking the path

[1:41:36] Voice 12: with Indigenous peoples and Indigenous governing bodies

[1:41:39] Voice 12: towards better management.

[1:41:43] Voice 12: Now, that is funny with Australia.

[1:41:44] Voice 12: However, the Islands Trust Act, when it was written, did not consult or include First

[1:41:51] Voice 12: Nations.

[1:41:52] Voice 12: We're still working with a codified set of laws and legislations that actually deprived

[1:42:00] Voice 12: them of voice at this time.

[1:42:01] Voice 12: Well, in 1982 they should have, the Trust made a statement.

[1:42:04] Voice 12: 1974.

[1:42:07] Voice 12: Yeah.

[1:42:07] Voice 12: But if you're saying they didn't, by 1982 they should have, and that's the Trust mistake.

[1:42:12] Voice 12: 21 First Nations were added as agencies that we must work in cooperation with.

[1:42:20] Voice 12: So that is legislatively in our statute, that we must work in cooperation with First Nations.

[1:42:27] Voice 12: So it doesn't follow that we can just ignore what they're saying.

[1:42:32] Voice 12: I never speak, when you think I'm suggesting that, I mean, forget it, I'm not.

[1:42:37] Voice 12: But there are still impacts to them in terms of dispossession of land.

[1:42:42] Voice 12: We've heard that in this room from Hereditary Chief Eric Pelkey that we are

[1:42:47] Voice 12: still in a process

[1:42:49] Voice 12: of restoring the ability of First Nations to connect with the lands here.

[1:42:55] Voice 12: And with respect, I'm always so sorry that we don't have any First Nations here.

[1:43:03] Voice 12: Ever.

[1:43:03] Voice 12: Except for that one of the community you know, you know, he

[1:43:08] Voice 4: was invited, um,

[1:43:10] Voice 12: which we, I'm

[1:43:12] Voice 12: And I'm so sorry that never, ever in all my years of living here and sending meetings,

[1:43:18] Voice 12: that we never have any First Nations.

[1:43:21] Voice 12: And I don't know why.

[1:43:23] Voice 12: I think we'll take a break now.

[1:43:25] Voice 12: Is there a few questions?

[1:43:28] Voice 12: I just had

[1:43:29] Voice 12: one more point or one more comment and then I'm done.

[1:43:36] Voice 14: My

[1:43:36] Voice 12: other one was that when you looked at page six, it talks about Indigenous inherent rights

[1:43:42] Voice 12: acknowledgement and in that it looks to me maybe i'm wrong but it looks like the trust is working

[1:43:49] Voice 12: towards co-governance of the audience trust area with first nations so i'm troubled by the

[1:43:56] Voice 12: co-governance um the the trust policy is for all of british columbia everybody including first

[1:44:04] Voice 12: nations. And I wonder what do you mean by co-governance? We vote for our trustees

[1:44:12] Voice 12: because it's a democratic system and our trustees vote for the chair and there is

[1:44:21] Voice 12: a democracy. So why would a non-elected body be co-governed? But

[1:44:32] Voice 12: I believe there's a difference between

[1:44:35] Voice 12: I mean, consultation, there should be consultation.

[1:44:38] Voice 12: Absolutely agree with that.

[1:44:40] Voice 4: Michelle, I'm

[1:44:41] Voice 4: going to respond.

[1:44:43] Voice 4: So this sentence here says, Islands Trust Council

[1:44:46] Voice 4: respectfully acknowledges indigenous rights

[1:44:51] Voice 4: to self-governance and the expressed interest

[1:44:53] Voice 4: of the indigenous governing bodies

[1:44:55] Voice 4: in working to remove co-governance

[1:44:58] Voice 4: of the Islands Trust area.

[1:44:59] Voice 4: This was a major theme through the Food Act

[1:45:02] Voice 4: that we were seeing from the First Nations

[1:45:04] Voice 4: when we were going through our referral program.

[1:45:07] Voice 4: So we're acknowledging that we have heard that.

[1:45:10] Voice 4: We have not said we are doing that.

[1:45:12] Voice 4: What we're saying here is we have heard the expressed interest.

[1:45:17] Voice 4: And as part of that feedback,

[1:45:21] Voice 4: we're acknowledging that expressed interest here.

[1:45:24] Voice 4: That does not mean that we are starting a co-governance

[1:45:32] Voice 4: uh body uh that is that is not within our jurisdiction we don't have the authority to

[1:45:39] Voice 4: do that what we're saying is we have heard

[1:45:42] Voice 12: it we've said we've heard it authorities to regulate

[1:45:48] Voice 12: thank you for clarifying the province and the province directs the authority through a set of

[1:45:55] Voice 12: legislation to a body so through islands trust act which has essentially not been changed since

[1:46:01] Voice 12: 1974 except in 2021 in which it added First Nations as agencies that we need to cooperate with

[1:46:10] Voice 12: that act would need to be amended or a section 7 agreement which is under DRIPA the Declaration

[1:46:19] Voice 12: of the Rights of Indigenous People the province can create a section 7 agreement between a

[1:46:25] Voice 12: municipal government and First Nation that would have to happen before there could be any

[1:46:30] Voice 12: talk of full governance. So the authority still rests with the Violence Trust Council and the

[1:46:35] Voice 12: structure we have today. Let's take a break. 15 minutes, refresh your coffee cups. Keep

[1:46:44] Voice 12: bringing us your questions. These are great. I have a person with a case to speak to.

[1:46:48] Voice 12: Yeah, Susan, you'll be on that.

[1:46:50] Voice 12: Okay,

[1:46:50] Voice 5: I still, and then I still can't.

[1:47:12] Voice 5: And if there was interest in that,

[1:47:14] Voice 5: just let me know.

[2:05:19] Voice 3: need to

[2:05:19] Voice 12: leave um thank you staff in the background if we can go back online

[2:05:29] Voice 12: can we modify the list based on who needs to go well

[2:05:33] Voice 12: and oh and i did want to get back to the what's it the 23 res

[2:05:47] Voice 12: 32 resolutions of Trust Council at some point,

[2:05:49] Voice 12: if anybody has any questions and wants to just skim over

[2:05:53] Voice 12: what previous Trust Council had said,

[2:05:55] Voice 12: you can go back at the back.

[2:05:56] Voice 12: But Susan, please.

[2:06:02] Voice 12: I only have one

[2:06:04] Voice 8: comment really,

[2:06:06] Voice 8: and it's about something that Shelly touched on,

[2:06:08] Voice 8: and that's the colonialism definition

[2:06:11] Voice 8: that was included in the glossary.

[2:06:14] Voice 8: I can't pretend to say I've read the whole graph policy statement, but so far I've only come across one reference to colonialism.

[2:06:24] Voice 8: And I wondered why it was necessary to include this at all.

[2:06:30] Voice 14: There

[2:06:30] Voice 8: are many definitions of colonialism.

[2:06:34] Voice 12: And I

[2:06:35] Voice 8: look at this and frankly my handfuls go out.

[2:06:40] Voice 8: And I know that from the perspective of the first nation speaker who was here, this is

[2:06:49] Voice 8: a completely accurate description of what happened.

[2:06:53] Voice 14: Their

[2:06:53] Voice 8: land was sown, they were

[2:06:55] Voice 8: disenfranchised, they were removed, they were stripped of any

[2:06:59] Voice 8: rights that they might have had, and many of the rights that they might have had to

[2:07:02] Voice 8: be included in the new society.

[2:07:04] Voice 8: This is one perspective on what it is, and it's a massive step.

[2:07:09] Voice 8: And as I say, I find it to be identified as part of the continuing colonial system.

[2:07:20] Voice 8: I do not think that what we have now is a colonial system.

[2:07:24] Voice 8: We have a post-colonial system, and we are working to make things better.

[2:07:29] Voice 8: This definition doesn't recognize that we have any progress at all since the days when

[2:07:37] Voice 8: and these terrible, terrible things happened in our history.

[2:07:40] Voice 14: And

[2:07:40] Voice 8: because it's so unnecessary,

[2:07:42] Voice 8: I ask you to consider simply removing it.

[2:07:46] Voice 11: Thank you, Susan.

[2:07:55] Voice 11: Frank, you're second.

[2:07:57] Voice 10: I'd like to come back to the cautionary principle

[2:07:59] Voice 10: because I think we got away from that

[2:08:03] Voice 10: pretty basic kind of discretion that brings a lot of things.

[2:08:07] Voice 10: And through the chair who's used the administration

[2:08:09] Voice 10: a number of times.

[2:08:12] Voice 10: The cautionary principle, to me, is that place in between doing something that's irreparable

[2:08:20] Voice 10: or, and you have to mitigate it, say, two or one habitat can be a place to go with some

[2:08:26] Voice 11: kind of screening, whatever the case may be.

[2:08:28] Voice 11: But between that, there's avoiding that you have to

[2:08:31] Voice 10: do so if other reasonable alternatives

[2:08:35] Voice 10: exist.

[2:08:35] Voice 10: For example, there are at least two places I know of on the island, southern waterfront here, that have been blasted, the leveled-off building sites.

[2:08:49] Voice 10: Reasonable alternatives, one of those lands, which adversely and irreparably harmed not

[2:08:59] Voice 2: only that site, but the people next to that site during the construction and afterwards.

[2:09:04] Voice 2: words because of open up views that were and privacy and stuff like that so i just use that

[2:09:10] Voice 2: as an example um and so

[2:09:12] Voice 10: it can it feeds back into how policies are implemented between all of this

[2:09:18] Voice 10: stuff and a building permit there is no place in between for say the people on staff level

[2:09:25] Voice 10: to walk through a site with an applicant before they provide a

[2:09:31] Voice 2: billing effing permit excuse me

[2:09:33] Voice 2: You've already spent $10,000, you don't want to change the darn thing,

[2:09:37] Voice 14: or whatever the

[2:09:38] Voice 2: case may be.

[2:09:39] Voice 2: You might have got it

[2:09:39] Voice 10: for $500, who knows, there's drafting services.

[2:09:43] Voice 10: Somewhere between, there's a role for professional people to walk around and talk about things.

[2:09:51] Voice 10: By the way, do we have policies on plastic?

[2:09:55] Voice 10: I don't know if we do or not, but it doesn't seem like we do.

[2:09:57] Voice 10: Do we have policies on clear cutting or not?

[2:10:00] Voice 10: not, I don't think we do on this item. So some place in

[2:10:05] Voice 10: between is the sort of a site evaluation. And I'm not sure

[2:10:09] Voice 10: it's at the mapping level of detail that has been talked

[2:10:13] Voice 10: about. For example, or not, by the

[2:10:22] Voice 2: time somebody is applying

[2:10:23] Voice 2: for a building permit that's absolutely consistent with his

[2:10:25] Voice 2: only land use by law, it's done is is going to be 10 feet away

[2:10:30] Voice 2: or whatever the case may be, or preferably 15 or 20 from its neighbors without impact.

[2:10:37] Voice 2: And so in a way, I'm coming back to what's missing in this document to me is neighborliness,

[2:10:47] Voice 2: which is when we talk about the human aspects of it, you're absolutely right, and the enjoyment

[2:10:52] Voice 2: of everybody of the province, but particularly of the people who live and work here locally.

[2:10:59] Voice 10: not particularly but certainly them and and we don't seem to have that principle of you

[2:11:11] Voice 10: can you not put that house right here you know maybe it could be clear you know say footprint

[2:11:19] Voice 10: maybe he has places to go on the site i don't know so that we're trying to figure out that

[2:11:23] Voice 10: rule of the islands trust it's not your guy's job it

[2:11:28] Voice 12: is well signing abuse is islands trust

[2:11:31] Voice 12: jurisdiction building permitting is not yeah and

[2:11:34] Voice 12: so just just to answer the mechanics of that

[2:11:37] Voice 12: question is there a check on where somebody could put their house or their dwelling before they

[2:11:46] Voice 12: you know get the permit so planners um all building permits so they get referred to

[2:11:55] Voice 12: planners to see if they conform to the zoning which is citing and use where is where are they

[2:12:03] Voice 12: allowed to situation yeah yeah that's a follow-up question um is there any jurisdiction of the

[2:12:18] Voice 10: So within the CRD, where we are, all building permits do get referred to the Islands Trust

[2:12:25] Voice 10: for an assessment of whether they comply with the zoning regulations as they apply to that

[2:12:30] Voice 10: law.

[2:12:32] Voice 10: Now, of course, like our, you know, everything we do is through the lens of some authority

[2:12:39] Voice 10: under part 14 of the local government right density that's allowed on a property setbacks

[2:12:45] Voice 10: on a property height of buildings that are committed on a property development permit

[2:12:49] Voice 10: areas for the protection of something that is considered to be of ecological value in an area

[2:12:56] Voice 10: so there's no there's no mechanism at least not one that has any teeth of a staff person going

[2:13:03] Voice 10: out and walking the land for example and saying i think you should put the house over there instead

[2:13:07] Voice 10: over there because I don't want you to cut down those big Douglas fir trees. Unless those Douglas

[2:13:13] Voice 10: fir trees are identified for protection under some formal tool, and in this case that tool

[2:13:19] Voice 10: would potentially be a development permit area for the protection of trees over x centimeters

[2:13:25] Voice 10: in diameter or whatever criteria was going to be used to justify their protection, there isn't

[2:13:32] Voice 10: an ability for staff at least to be kind of good you know good to to apply a good neighborliness

[2:13:38] Voice 10: approach to development all we can apply is whatever the whatever the regulations are that

[2:13:43] Voice 10: are in the OCP land use bylaw a local trust committee could signal a feeling around things

[2:13:50] Voice 10: in its official community plan if it wanted to again it wouldn't necessarily have any regulatory

[2:13:57] Voice 10: regulatory values, but, you know, an OCP could say something along the lines of,

[2:14:02] Voice 10: South Penderop and residents should consider their,

[2:14:04] Voice 6: consider

[2:14:05] Voice 10: the well-being of their neighbors when,

[2:14:07] Voice 10: when contemplating land altering activities or something like that, but it doesn't,

[2:14:12] Voice 10: doesn't have any teeth.

[2:14:14] Voice 12: Well, when you get into the regulations, you are looking at black and white,

[2:14:18] Voice 12: and in administrative fairness, everybody has to be looking at the same set of black and white laws.

[2:14:27] Voice 12: So whatever has been set out as your land use by-law regulations,

[2:14:31] Voice 12: if it's 30 metres back, you cannot build within 30 metres of the foreshore

[2:14:35] Voice 12: or the high-water mark, that's set out in your OCP

[2:14:39] Voice 12: and that's set out in the land use by-law,

[2:14:41] Voice 12: and that's what the planners are checking against.

[2:14:44] Voice 12: They can't interpret it in any way.

[2:14:48] Voice 12: And I would add, that's a free service.

[2:14:50] Voice 12: That's what peers are paying for.

[2:14:52] Voice 12: The landowner who wants to develop and gets their building permit,

[2:14:57] Voice 12: They're paying for a building permit, they're paying the CRD, as a service to see how does this conform, because we're multi-jurisdictional, we do that desktop review, and then go, yes, it meets the siting menus, and that is the best we can do.

[2:15:11] Voice 12: Sorry, I cut you off, Jason.

[2:15:13] Voice 12: And

[2:15:13] Voice 10: then the other two questions, can we regulate blasting? I would say, and Kim can maybe support me on this, I would say, no, we can't regulate blasting specifically.

[2:15:25] Voice 10: specifically i would expect so that maybe that well i know for a fact that is a power that

[2:15:32] Voice 10: municipalities have and i don't know whether it's granted to them under the local government act or

[2:15:37] Voice 10: under the community charter it's one of those two documents will specify that they have that

[2:15:42] Voice 10: authority i do not believe that the honors trust does um i will go away and my phone just buzzed

[2:15:48] Voice 10: that maybe somebody watching the meeting would be like, we do, we can't. Nope. So to the best of my

[2:15:57] Voice 10: knowledge, we do not have that authority. However, if you were to create a development permit area

[2:16:04] Voice 10: for the protection of the shoreline, for example, that extended 30 meters up from the shoreline or

[2:16:10] Voice 10: something like that, then whoever was doing work in that development permit area would have to

[2:16:15] Voice 10: comply with the guidelines and a guideline could say something along the lines of

[2:16:20] Voice 10: blasting must be kept to the absolute minimum except for in the following limited circumstances

[2:16:26] Voice 10: or something like that like you can begin to regulate it through a through a development

[2:16:32] Voice 10: permit area like that and the same is true for tree cutting where um we've been fairly we are

[2:16:42] Voice 10: fairly confident that we don't have the authority to implement tree cutting bylaws of the same form

[2:16:48] Voice 10: that municipalities have because we don't have that authority under the community charter or the

[2:16:52] Voice 10: local government act but we can create development permit areas for the protection of some specific

[2:16:58] Voice 10: environmental or ecological value that we identify you just need to say you need to identify where

[2:17:04] Voice 10: that special area is and use the tool that we have today and

[2:17:07] Voice 12: it's protecting specific species

[2:17:08] Voice 12: species have to be mentioned in that area

[2:17:11] Voice 10: yeah or you just need to you need to be able to clearly

[2:17:13] Voice 10: articulate what it is that's special about the place you're trying to protect yeah

[2:17:18] Voice 12: because that's

[2:17:19] Voice 12: where it all comes down to the law gets very sharply defined because eventually we all have to

[2:17:26] Voice 12: agree this line exists or it doesn't exist and that's why we have these arguments in community

[2:17:32] Voice 12: about 15 meters versus 30 meter setbacks because it really does matter you can't just interpret it

[2:17:39] Voice 12: according to the light of what you think is right so but back cycling back up to how do you have a

[2:17:45] Voice 12: good policy that would protect forest ecosystems so 3.3.3 identify forest ecosystems and prioritize

[2:17:52] Voice 12: the preservation protection and restoration of the unfragmented forests how you do that

[2:17:59] Voice 12: in your south pender ltc official community plan and then the land use bylaw that supports that

[2:18:07] Voice 12: plan is totally up to the community and there is i would say very insufficient protections

[2:18:16] Voice 12: right now for the for forests across multiple lots you could declare the entire

[2:18:23] Voice 12: entire area of south pender this is a dpa for forest protection everybody who moves here and

[2:18:31] Voice 12: has a lot here has to conform to this criteria when developing your lot that would be one way

[2:18:37] Voice 12: to do it enforcement of that's going to be very difficult because then does

[2:18:41] Voice 12: everybody need to come

[2:18:42] Voice 12: to you come to the ltc to get a permit and spend a bunch of money to cut down a dead tree on their

[2:18:48] Voice 12: property right so you get into the complications of regulating and enforcing bylaws so the tools

[2:18:57] Voice 12: that we have are development permit areas how can you how can you how what activities are allowed in

[2:19:04] Voice 12: this area and what are not allowed and those have to be set out with pretty specific criteria this

[2:19:10] Voice 12: is area um it's an entire um flat top islands we've got a development permit area for the flat

[2:19:18] Voice 12: top islands of gabriel so it includes all of the islands and every application that comes

[2:19:24] Voice 12: for development has to come to the ltc have you met the criteria so does that confuse everything

[2:19:32] Voice 12: a lot more sorry frank precautionary principle though avoiding the impact completely um

[2:19:41] Voice 12: um I wish we could go back 200 years and make these policies truly be precautionary

[2:19:54] Voice 3: thanks thank you

[2:19:55] Voice 10: um just my question is about implementation of the directive policy sort of

[2:20:02] Voice 10: the process question before I get to it I'll just mention that we did a little bit of research

[2:20:07] Voice 10: long-lasting issue. And the provincial government has given leave for local trust committees to

[2:20:17] Voice 10: address that issue or soil relief issue, which fits into that. And I believe Salt Spring has

[2:20:24] Voice 10: a bylaw that addresses that. And at a minimum, it would seem that having some notice and approval

[2:20:33] Voice 10: approval process, a notice for neighbors who hear the blast and go, what was that?

[2:20:43] Voice 10: So I do think that's an issue that's worth checking back on, Jason. But my question really

[2:20:51] Voice 10: is, and this is a real concern I have about

[2:20:54] Voice 14: the

[2:20:56] Voice 10: proposed 2025 trust policy statement,

[2:21:01] Voice 10: is its implementation what what results on protection preservation and protection

[2:21:08] Voice 10: on the ground how does that work

[2:21:10] Voice 14: and

[2:21:11] Voice 10: as i understand it now uh a lot of the

[2:21:15] Voice 10: directive policies that's been pointed out by others are um generalized so that

[2:21:24] Voice 10: the option is to implement them in the ocp in a number of different ways you could have

[2:21:31] Voice 10: out five different communities for the same directive policy

[2:21:35] Voice 10: going in five different directions.

[2:21:38] Voice 10: And as I read the Trust Act, it talks about the trust area,

[2:21:43] Voice 10: the preserve and protect the trust area as a whole.

[2:21:47] Voice 10: So that's what the standard is.

[2:21:48] Voice 10: And what this draft policy statement is taking us

[2:21:52] Voice 10: to a point where it's not the trust area as a whole,

[2:21:56] Voice 10: but it's each island community.

[2:21:58] Voice 10: The emphasis being much on the community and the balancing of decisions and information

[2:22:04] Voice 10: so that what I see here is a balkanization of the trust policy in actuality.

[2:22:12] Voice 10: My question really comes down to what happens now if we have an implementation of a policy,

[2:22:22] Voice 10: and I'll just use an example of house size on South Bender Island where we have an OCP

[2:22:28] Voice 10: provision that says one thing about the rate of growth and development we have a

[2:22:33] Voice 10: bylaw that in some view of some people not everybody sees that as contrary to

[2:22:40] Voice 10: and at variance with the current OCP and what what is the criteria that trust the

[2:22:50] Voice 10: the trust executive committee uses to evaluate whether or not that is an acceptable bylaw

[2:22:59] Voice 10: that appears to be at least at variance with and in some view contrary to.

[2:23:08] Voice 10: So I'm interested and I'm aware of the policy 1.3.1, which talks about the implementation.

[2:23:16] Voice 10: It seems to me that it's a real significant omission for this Trump policy statement, not to include that in the Trump policy statement, because it's at the heart of it.

[2:23:29] Voice 10: But more to the point here, that policy 1.3.1 talks about an absolute collision.

[2:23:37] Voice 10: That is, if there isn't an absolute collision between the OCP and the new policy, then the

[2:23:45] Voice 10: new policy goes through.

[2:23:47] Voice 10: And so something tells me that we can do great work with the words and the directive policy.

[2:23:55] Voice 10: Local trust committees can put OCP policy into place, and

[2:24:01] Voice 10: then nothing really happens

[2:24:02] Voice 10: to protect the unique amenities and environment on the ground.

[2:24:06] Voice 10: And that's, so I would like, I mean, maybe Toby, as an executive committee member can talk to that. But I'd like your thoughts. First of all, is the trust still clinging to the outdated collision interpretation of the law, which subsequent court cases, including the two Saanich court cases, has a different interpretation.

[2:24:32] Voice 10: It's certainly not that blunt and it's not that you can do whatever you want, basically.

[2:24:40] Voice 14: Great question.

[2:24:43] Voice 10: The way we continue to approach the policy statement is that it is going to be up to

[2:24:50] Voice 10: executive committee to determine whether a proposed bylaw is consistent with the policy

[2:24:54] Voice 10: statement as a whole.

[2:24:56] Voice 10: During my time, Gary, maybe you've seen this when executive committee is called upon to

[2:25:02] Voice 10: make this evaluation they turn to what is called the directives only checklist which is basically

[2:25:07] Voice 10: all of the directive policies in the current policy statement put on a single document and

[2:25:12] Voice 10: there's a does this does the proposed bylaw comply with this policy yes or no right and so so no

[2:25:18] Voice 10: reference to the ocp just to the trust policy state just to the trust policy yes that's what

[2:25:24] Voice 10: i understood um staff do the initial evaluation of that then it goes to the ltc that is proposing

[2:25:32] Voice 10: in this bylaw change and they say yes we agree with staff's evaluation or no we don't agree with

[2:25:38] Voice 10: staff's evaluation if they agree if the local trust committee agrees that the proposed bylaw

[2:25:45] Voice 10: is consistent with the policy statement as a whole not just necessarily individual directed

[2:25:49] Voice 10: policy as a whole it then moves on to executive committee for executive duties decision toby is

[2:25:56] Voice 10: better placed or sorry the chair is better placed than i to talk about the decision making rationale

[2:26:04] Voice 10: that is applied there but at the moment it is a political decision they don't turn to any other

[2:26:12] Voice 10: supporting document to help them make their decision except for the policy statement

[2:26:18] Voice 10: in its entirety now we have here in this graph some guiding principles that should help focus

[2:26:25] Voice 10: trustees in on their decision making um but it sounds to me like you would be

[2:26:33] Voice 10: i guess desirous of more a more defined evaluative criteria to assess whether or not

[2:26:43] Voice 10: a given directive policy is impacted but what i'm understanding or maybe a misunderstanding

[2:26:49] Voice 10: is you're telling me that policy 1.3.1 is not what's used

[2:26:57] Voice 12: there's a there's this section one point three which is indigenous

[2:27:02] Voice 12: the policy that

[2:27:10] Voice 10: was enacted in 1994 1.3.1 which talks about implementation and that's

[2:27:20] Voice 10: what this whole exercise is about and yet we have trap doors on the road to implementation

[2:27:26] Voice 10: mutation, so that nothing ever hits the ground, or it takes

[2:27:31] Voice 10: trust screens to make sure it does hit the ground. It's sort

[2:27:36] Voice 10: of like an exercise in frustration, and in some cases,

[2:27:40] Voice 10: futility.

[2:27:43] Voice 12: I will agree with you that without implementation, the

[2:27:48] Voice 12: policy statement, even if it is a very clear expression, and our

[2:27:55] Voice 12: best best work to date of all of the ways that the object of the trust must be upheld

[2:28:03] Voice 12: without an implementation plan it is vulnerable i would say to interpretation and if you get

[2:28:12] Voice 12: a council or an executive that is mostly of one view they can interpret it one way

[2:28:20] Voice 12: and and we struggle with this i would say i've struggled with it quite a lot

[2:28:26] Voice 12: the biggest like if all this policy statement does

[2:28:34] Voice 12: is if the only one that we advance is 3.11 engage with indigenous governing bodies

[2:28:40] Voice 12: and all the other policies stay the same that will advance that will enshrine the work that

[2:28:48] Voice 12: we're already doing which is when our first nation says our interest could be affected in this area

[2:28:53] Voice 12: we'd like to provide comment on this bylaw we we provide that draft bylaw they provide comment and

[2:29:01] Voice 12: it's part of our decision making so right now that is being done as a matter of process it is not in

[2:29:06] Voice 12: the current policy statement it's not required so a future executive committee i mean i think they

[2:29:12] Voice 12: They would not meet with ministerial approval because the minister has said you must engage and work towards consensus with First Nations in the development of your official community plans and your bylaws.

[2:29:26] Voice 12: So we've had ministerial direction on that, but it's not enshrined in our policy statement. That's a vulnerability.

[2:29:32] Voice 12: So if we get a new set of new council in that does not put such a focus on that respectful engagement government to government,

[2:29:40] Voice 12: and there's no policy to uphold it and there's no implementation plan to say how did you do this

[2:29:47] Voice 12: and what's the demonstration of your homework then that is a real risk and I've heard that from

[2:29:54] Voice 12: other people and other agencies and I think it's quite a fair comment.

[2:30:00] Voice 10: point about reconciliation but i still need a little bit of clarification from you jason

[2:30:06] Voice 10: it's my understanding as i read the act that when an ocp is approved by the executive committee

[2:30:13] Voice 10: as being consistent not not contrary to or at variance with the trust object that then goes

[2:30:23] Voice 10: to the minister of municipal affairs for final approval the minister has the same options of

[2:30:29] Voice 10: available to the minister and the ministry that is available to the executive community.

[2:30:35] Voice 10: Once the minister approves an OCP, it's my view that that OCP is the relevant, applicable

[2:30:46] Voice 10: administrative law requirements for that community.

[2:30:51] Voice 10: And when the trust review of this is looking at the generalized directive policies, and

[2:30:58] Voice 10: and particularly under this proposed trust policy statement,

[2:31:03] Voice 10: very generalized, and some would say really watered down.

[2:31:07] Voice 10: That's a view of opinion.

[2:31:11] Voice 10: Something is really missing there

[2:31:13] Voice 10: if the focus isn't on the OCP requirement.

[2:31:19] Voice 10: So I appreciate your example of reconciliation,

[2:31:23] Voice 10: but my question goes much deeper to the process itself.

[2:31:27] Voice 10: And I do know that reconciliation was addressed in the 2021 draft, so that's not the linchpin for me for this draft.

[2:31:41] Voice 11: Yeah,

[2:31:42] Voice 10: we're good. Okay, I think I'm having a hard time conceptualizing this, so if you don't, can we linger on this for a sec?

[2:31:50] Voice 10: for a sec yeah so you're okay so let's imagine let's take a south pender island example here um

[2:31:58] Voice 10: a bylaw is coming forward from south pender island local trust committee do you think of like what

[2:32:04] Voice 10: can you give me an example of a bylaw that changes something or are you talking about the ocp as a

[2:32:08] Voice 10: whole or are we just talking like this small i'll give you an example because we're dealing with it

[2:32:12] Voice 10: right now it's very very pertinent uh we haven't uh although

[2:32:17] Voice 12: we can't hear any views post public

[2:32:19] Voice 12: hearing so maybe i will caution them so let's not use the current one let's use it okay

[2:32:25] Voice 10: yeah because

[2:32:28] Voice 12: let's

[2:32:28] Voice 10: assume it's a different island

[2:32:33] Voice 4: yeah

[2:32:33] Voice 10: um so if if an ocp says uh a b and c are required

[2:32:42] Voice 10: required for development and growth, just generally, let's say, may not.

[2:32:50] Voice 10: And a bylaw is brought forward that does two of those, but doesn't do one of them.

[2:33:00] Voice 10: And it's reviewed by trust staff in terms of the directive policy that was generalized,

[2:33:09] Voice 10: and in this case, even more generalized.

[2:33:15] Voice 10: And that still goes through because it's not at contrary to or at variance with the generalized trust policy.

[2:33:23] Voice 10: So we don't have the protection of our OCP there.

[2:33:26] Voice 10: Well, no, but your trustees are the protection of the OCP and their interpretation of whether or not what's being proposed is consistent with the OCP.

[2:33:39] Voice 10: I think that's a brilliant answer.

[2:33:41] Voice 10: I do. I do for the reason that the bottom line is who we have as trustees will determine what is done.

[2:33:53] Voice 10: And that's the balkanization that I'm talking about.

[2:33:57] Voice 10: We do not, we're not moving toward a standard to protect the trust area and what the minister referred to as the ecological mandate.

[2:34:06] Voice 10: Andy, we're working to an approach which allows each island, each local trust area, to develop

[2:34:16] Voice 10: its own approach.

[2:34:17] Voice 10: Not only that, but once they develop their own approach, somebody else can come along

[2:34:21] Voice 10: and say, well, that was a good idea.

[2:34:24] Voice 10: That's guidance.

[2:34:25] Voice 10: But really, what we're going to do is this.

[2:34:27] Voice 10: And there's no way to deal with that.

[2:34:29] Voice 10: So I think your answer is very brilliant.

[2:34:31] Voice 10: And the question then becomes, who do we elect as our trustees?

[2:34:35] Voice 10: well

[2:34:37] Voice 12: it's it's less it i don't think it's actually as personal and interpretive as you think because

[2:34:44] Voice 12: there's a few other checks in place so there is you can do an appeal so if executive committee

[2:34:52] Voice 12: says um this is contrary to policy you know 3.11 for whatever reason and the local trustees say

[2:35:03] Voice 12: well no we actually believe it is you know our community is saying it does conform you can go

[2:35:09] Voice 12: to trust council and make that pitch and so there is a federation sort of i think it's a two-thirds

[2:35:14] Voice 12: vote um to throw out the executive committee but i agree with you there's no recipe for how this

[2:35:21] Voice 12: stands up to the policy statement it really is risky it's it's very tricky um but i will say

[2:35:29] Voice 12: when you look at the way that the different land use bylaws have expressed

[2:35:36] Voice 12: not only the OCP policies of their community but the policy statement so

[2:35:41] Voice 12: previously the let's just take a big example how to restrict you know the

[2:35:51] Voice 12: depth the degradation of forests in the trust area broadly how do we do that

[2:35:58] Voice 12: keeping lots large was an initial approach for many many years. So you see

[2:36:04] Voice 12: this expressed in Salt Spring's OCP and Gabriela's OCP with minimum lot sizes.

[2:36:10] Voice 12: Laskete has a minimum lot size of 10 acres, they kept the 10 acre minimum.

[2:36:15] Voice 12: Gabriela's 5 acres. Salt Spring, the minimum size of lots and the minimum

[2:36:21] Voice 12: average size should remain the same as indicated by current bylaws, should not

[2:36:26] Voice 12: be less than eight hectares except so so the way that forest protection is expressed previously was

[2:36:34] Voice 12: keep lots large that reduces the chance that somebody's going to clear cut their lot now if

[2:36:41] Voice 12: you've got a tiny little lot and you want to build a house then that is a greater chance that you're

[2:36:48] Voice 12: going to cut that down so that was one approach how do we support a policy at the very top level

[2:36:54] Voice 12: of protection of preservation of forests but we evolve and we get to well can we

[2:37:03] Voice 12: move development away from areas that have already got little forest cover and say no

[2:37:14] Voice 12: more development there or do you want to as a community direct any current and future development

[2:37:22] Voice 12: to what has already impacted and leave those large lots alone.

[2:37:27] Voice 12: So now we're getting into the refinement of how development has impacted the land

[2:37:31] Voice 12: and what is left, and that re-evaluation has to happen through your OCP policy

[2:37:35] Voice 12: and the zones that you create.

[2:37:37] Voice 12: I don't think that specificity is possible at the level of the policy statement

[2:37:43] Voice 12: because it has to apply to all the local trust areas.

[2:37:48] Voice 12: So I'm even questioning whether the small clustered dwellings,

[2:37:51] Voice 12: which my community would like to see in certain areas is suitable for a community like Mesquitee,

[2:37:58] Voice 12: which has a 10-inch minimum and doesn't want additional density. Do you know what I mean?

[2:38:05] Voice 12: So how do you make policies that are general enough to apply to the whole trust area,

[2:38:11] Voice 12: but yet allow some, because these are autonomous governing bodies. HLTC is autonomous government.

[2:38:22] Voice 12: to be able to make a decision based on the community plan,

[2:38:26] Voice 12: all the precedents that it's performing.

[2:38:28] Voice 12: I

[2:38:28] Voice 10: take your point. It's a good one.

[2:38:29] Voice 10: But my question still to Jason was,

[2:38:32] Voice 10: is the official community plan provision

[2:38:36] Voice 10: the authoritative administrative law requirements

[2:38:39] Voice 10: for land use bylaws in that jurisdiction?

[2:38:44] Voice 10: And you can have the general thing about forestry,

[2:38:48] Voice 10: but what a particular community, let's say the city,

[2:38:51] Voice 10: does about that, whatever their OCP is, that is not contrary to or at variance with, that

[2:39:02] Voice 10: is the operative administrative law requirements for that community.

[2:39:10] Voice 10: But I don't see the protection in the approval process.

[2:39:15] Voice 10: You gave the example of the executive committee turning down a particular bylaw because it

[2:39:21] Voice 10: was contrary to or at variance with and then it can go to trust counsel that's only if you don't

[2:39:27] Voice 10: approve it i mean when the referral is coming to you based on the generalized directive policies

[2:39:33] Voice 10: it's pretty hard to turn it down especially if they're generalized which the new proposed

[2:39:41] Voice 10: bylaw is more generalized so we're losing ground here so

[2:39:45] Voice 12: wait a minute let's turn it around and go

[2:39:47] Voice 12: how can you empower or how can you use your community's OCP as the lens to qualify whether

[2:39:58] Voice 12: that statement of the armistrust policies that met could the implementation plan be and I don't

[2:40:05] Voice 12: want to take away if you've got an answer to his question I'd love it but could the implementation

[2:40:09] Voice 12: implementation plan b that south bender ltc it's presenting a revised community plan policy let's

[2:40:18] Voice 12: say uh there's a preamble in there the ltc has to write a statement saying how does it support

[2:40:25] Voice 12: policy you know 3.3.1 protected area networks so it makes the could make the planner do the work

[2:40:36] Voice 12: and that's kind of what happens today is like yes there's a checklist that says yes it supports this

[2:40:41] Voice 12: or not but you could have a requirement to say it meets you know 3.3.3 forest ecosystems in this way

[2:40:50] Voice 12: and the test could be at the community level so then the executive committee would just be like

[2:40:56] Voice 12: well we can see that's logical and makes sense you know we don't have to have in-depth knowledge

[2:41:01] Voice 12: of South Perth's LTC, although that's my job as the chair, is to represent and understand

[2:41:07] Voice 12: your OCP enough that I can say, well, it actually does what it does.

[2:41:11] Voice 12: So that implementation table I plan is really important, and it hasn't been answered as

[2:41:18] Voice 12: to how it will be tested, should it be from the community's OCP or from the policy statement

[2:41:25] Voice 12: down.

[2:41:26] Voice 12: That's time for a good answer.

[2:41:29] Voice 10: so what your question boils down to Paul if I understand it is you are concerned that a

[2:41:36] Voice 10: bylaw could make it to executive committee for approval and be approved that in your opinion

[2:41:42] Voice 10: is inconsistent with the OCP of the community yes from once it came oh thank goodness right

[2:41:48] Voice 10: okay well that's like yeah it is it is up to your local trust committee to be the arbiters

[2:41:55] Voice 10: of whether or not the bylaw is consistent with the OCP or not.

[2:41:59] Voice 10: So presumably, if it's made it to executive,

[2:42:00] Voice 10: maybe they agree that it's consistent with the OCP

[2:42:04] Voice 10: until such time as somebody sues them

[2:42:06] Voice 10: and the courts say otherwise.

[2:42:08] Voice 10: But the jurisprudence around that is such

[2:42:11] Voice 10: that I think local trust committees

[2:42:13] Voice 10: and all elected local bodies

[2:42:14] Voice 10: are given very wide latitude to be the interpreters

[2:42:18] Voice 14: of

[2:42:19] Voice 10: whether something is consistent.

[2:42:21] Voice 10: Which is why your answer earlier was brilliant

[2:42:23] Voice 10: about who you elect as your trustees is what determines the level of protection

[2:42:29] Voice 10: you get. Yeah, unless we want to impose upon the policy statement or our official

[2:42:36] Voice 10: community plans some very prescriptive, you know, associated methodologies that

[2:42:42] Voice 12: can

[2:42:43] Voice 10: be used to evaluate.

[2:42:44] Voice 12: Again, if you elect from a legislative point of view, you cannot

[2:42:46] Voice 12: fetcher with such an

[2:42:48] Voice 4: elected person and that's where the problem is. Yes, it

[2:42:53] Voice 4: really does boil down to who you have sitting in the seat as to whether or not only one portion of

[2:43:02] Voice 4: the community is heard or whether the entire community is taken into consideration for the

[2:43:08] Voice 4: balanced view so that's kind of and the person who's sitting here may have a preference to a

[2:43:15] Voice 4: a particular voice of the community

[2:43:19] Voice 4: and choose to not give too much weight

[2:43:22] Voice 4: to another voice in the community.

[2:43:24] Voice 4: So that's where

[2:43:27] Voice 12: you, yeah, we do have to be careful

[2:43:28] Voice 12: because the person who sits here

[2:43:30] Voice 12: has

[2:43:31] Voice 4: very

[2:43:33] Voice 12: little accountability

[2:43:37] Voice 4: from a legislative point of view,

[2:43:40] Voice 4: as far as the latitude given to the decision-making.

[2:43:46] Voice 4: thing. And it's legislated that latitude would be. I

[2:43:53] Voice 11: don't think there's an answer to you.

[2:43:55] Voice 11: Well,

[2:43:55] Voice 10: I do think there is. There are court cases that address that issue. There is latitude,

[2:44:02] Voice 10: but that contrary to is one end of the spectrum and that variance with is the other end of the

[2:44:10] Voice 10: spectrum. And the question is, where does that fall there? And I think in law, there's accountability.

[2:44:17] bill it so there is an

[2:44:18] Voice 10: answer i'm just not proposing that you know we have judicial review on

[2:44:23] Voice 10: but on a key decision that's happened in many jurisdictions i

[2:44:29] Voice 4: think what i'm saying is the

[2:44:30] Voice 4: person who sits here has the right to make that decision and if it does go to court and it's

[2:44:37] Voice 4: a blatant variance with then that's how that decision gets overturned but the person who's

[2:44:46] Voice 4: is making the decision isn't the person held accountable.

[2:44:53] Voice 12: I might be saying this one like, well, the decisions

[2:44:57] Voice 12: that I've seen as in where a court has had to say,

[2:45:02] Voice 12: did this LTC have the authority to make

[2:45:05] Voice 12: this decision in this area?

[2:45:07] Voice 12: Often they'll ask, did the LTC turn its mind

[2:45:13] Voice 12: to all the contextual um matters and this is what i was referring to earlier about keeping an open

[2:45:21] Voice 12: mind cannot actually prejudge you're sort of saying you can have a preference but actually

[2:45:28] Voice 12: when you're sitting in the seat you have to have an open mind and you have to consider

[2:45:33] Voice 12: and you have to have shown that you've done your homework and you've considered so even if you

[2:45:38] Voice 12: you decide something in favor of you know you're going to issue this development variance permit

[2:45:44] Voice 12: even though it's in the foreshore of the sea but you've considered all of the important elements

[2:45:52] Voice 12: has the ocp policy been considered has their land use file considered has a policy statement

[2:45:57] Voice 12: been considered and i think that would be then if it was argued in court if you couldn't show

[2:46:03] Voice 12: that you considered all the important elements um but could be overturned because it's not just

[2:46:09] Voice 12: up to your discretion anyway

[2:46:10] Voice 10: thank you for your really detailed and helpful answers

[2:46:16] Voice 3: well

[2:46:17] Voice 10: no no i agree with my neighbor that there is no ultimate yeah

[2:46:21] Voice 3: however

[2:46:22] Voice 10: this this

[2:46:23] Voice 10: is a

[2:46:24] Voice 10: consideration that we must have as we decide whether or not this is a viable trust policy

[2:46:33] Voice 10: statement. And right now, I'm leaning to the much more clear and focused 2021 trust policy statement

[2:46:45] as the far better option. That's just my take

[2:46:50] Voice 10: at this point, because at least it gives us

[2:46:53] Voice 10: broader global protection.

[2:46:55] Voice 12: Can you give me an example? Sorry, my mouth is full.

[2:46:59] Voice 12: um someone at gabriella gave us a great example of forest protection policy in the 2021 document

[2:47:07] Voice 12: that they didn't see reflected here

[2:47:09] Voice 9: so

[2:47:10] Voice 12: i would say if we can trace it back and then go back to those

[2:47:14] Voice 12: like 32 directives why did things change what are we working with now sort of what's the map that

[2:47:20] Voice 12: was asked of this council um and it's totally possible to walk back to 2021 but i do want to

[2:47:28] Voice 12: understand what is stronger what do you perceive to be stronger in that document it's not showing

[2:47:33] Voice 12: up here um

[2:47:34] Voice 10: we have to go back and fill in some notes uh go down on some notes um i guess from

[2:47:45] Voice 10: a broad point of view around the unique amenities um the current trust policy 3.1 uh and i don't

[2:47:55] Voice 10: have those numbers in my head but i can pull it out uh lists the unique amenities in the trust area

[2:48:03] Voice 10: you know it provides uh that's what we've got now what we've got going forward to doesn't have that

[2:48:13] Voice 10: so it's a miss i view i view the current trust proposed trust policy as incomplete

[2:48:31] Voice 10: I'm analog, so I have to do a look at the colors on the stage.

[2:48:38] Voice 10: Protection must be given to the natural processes on the tracks and species of the trust area,

[2:48:42] Voice 10: putting most of the oil in for us.

[2:48:44] Voice 11: Is

[2:48:45] Voice 10: that a no?

[2:48:47] Voice 10: No, just a second.

[2:48:49] Voice 11: But if I will.

[2:48:54] Voice 11: 3

[2:49:01] Voice 10: .1 ecosystems,

[2:49:02] Voice 10: 3.11, plus council

[2:49:05] Voice 10: holds that, and it lists

[2:49:08] Voice 10: unique amenities

[2:49:09] Voice 10: there.

[2:49:12] Voice 10: To me, that's

[2:49:14] Voice 10: a key provision in the

[2:49:17] Voice 10: current policy that we're losing.

[2:49:23] Voice 11: you

[2:49:25] Voice 10: don't see any unique amenities so

[2:49:28] Voice 4: i'm looking for the words unique amenities

[2:49:31] Voice 4: oh

[2:49:32] Voice 10: you don't see that word there okay these are unique amenities it identifies that right off the

[2:49:39] Voice 10: top as trust policy so that you know unique amenities goes back to that consensus statement

[2:49:47] Voice 10: in 1986, which has guided the trust for this many years,

[2:49:55] Voice 10: you're putting forward a new proposed trust policy statement

[2:49:59] Voice 10: that is supposed to last till 2050,

[2:50:02] Voice 10: but no unique amenities definition

[2:50:05] Voice 10: or no really focal point for unique amenities.

[2:50:09] Voice 10: So let her rip, let's see where we end up.

[2:50:12] Voice 10: So

[2:50:15] Voice 12: directive policies 3.3.1 through 3.7, protected area network, sensitive ecosystems, forest ecosystems, coastal or prairie ecosystems, those together, I would say, define what the current 3.1 commitment of Trust Council protection must be given to the natural processes,

[2:50:42] Voice 12: habitat species in the trust area including those of the old forest coast to local spray so um

[2:50:48] Voice 12: i don't see anything in this list that isn't in that one sentence it just separates it out into

[2:51:01] Voice 12: different policies so how does it so you could then test well how does policy x protect

[2:51:07] Voice 12: uphold watershed ecosystem protection rather than just one big policy so i'm not sure

[2:51:13] Voice 12: or that it's not there, it's expressed differently.

[2:51:17] Voice 12: It

[2:51:17] Voice 10: really goes to Bruce's point about putting the priority

[2:51:20] Voice 10: on the protection of the natural environment.

[2:51:22] Voice 10: It really goes to that point.

[2:51:24] Voice 10: And this puts the policy right up front.

[2:51:31] Voice 10: The policies you're talking about are policies

[2:51:35] Voice 10: that will be considered along with other policies

[2:51:38] Voice 10: in terms of what the community's wishes are,

[2:51:41] Voice 10: housing tourism etc uh and and whatever the trust committee decides how they want to balance that

[2:51:52] Voice 10: so you're not getting protection of the natural environment as the primary lens you know and that

[2:52:01] discussion that happens sort of put it out as

[2:52:03] Voice 10: you either put the priority on the environment

[2:52:08] Voice 10: But if you put it on the environment that's absolute it'll preclude things. I just don't agree with that. I think that's how you protect the trust policy as well.

[2:52:18] Voice 12: But the test is how is it matched to a policy, a commitment of trust counsel. So what you're referring to 3.11 is a commitment.

[2:52:28] Voice 12: And it defines here's what we're committed to, which I would argue is in the guiding principles.

[2:52:35] Voice 12: but the policies themselves are still broken up out of 3.1.1, 3.1.3, they shall address

[2:52:43] Voice 12: the identification, protection, and environmentally sensitive areas, that's here, those are the

[2:52:47] Voice 12: actual policies, prioritized protection, preservation, and restoration of sensitive ecosystems, and

[2:52:56] Voice 12: if there's anything missing, I would like to see that added, like that's the kind of

[2:52:59] Voice 12: feedback we're looking for.

[2:53:01] Voice 12: Yeah, I just don't see how a commitment of Trust Council actually is a test to evaluate whether something

[2:53:08] Voice 12: Beats that and that was a commitment from a prior Trust Council

[2:53:13] Voice 12: No, it's an enemy but about the wording that's in here was the wording

[2:53:17] Voice 4: that came from a prior Trust Council

[2:53:18] Voice 4: That was the commitment of the day. We're adding in additional commitments here. We've got additional commitments for First Nations

[2:53:25] Voice 4: We've got additional commitments for climate action. We've got additional commitments for

[2:53:30] Voice 4: for housing. So, and those commitments are coming through as far as directive policies

[2:53:37] Voice 4: and advisory policies. So, those

[2:53:43] Voice 12: commitments up there are a piece of the commitments that

[2:53:47] Voice 12: have happened out in here. But if they're not strong enough, then that has to be explained.

[2:53:52] Voice 12: and I take your point I like the language and the clarity I don't see how a commitment

[2:54:05] Voice 12: is the same as direct policy so if you can help me unpack what you're seeing in a commitment

[2:54:11] Voice 12: and I don't necessarily agree that it's just trust counsel's interpretation of the day

[2:54:15] Voice 12: trust counsel is a body that is I'm saying that trust counsel are the ones that wrote the words

[2:54:20] Voice 12: we have a duty to uphold all of just counsel's decisions yes so which are good or bad anyway i

[2:54:27] Voice 10: really want to thank you for diving into that and i apologize to whoever's left

[2:54:35] Voice 10: you know and and that wasn't my intention but um you know i guess what i would say here is that

[2:54:44] Voice 10: what i've heard today some new information some good ideas some challenging things and i'm saying

[2:54:50] Voice 10: to myself we are well almost two-thirds of the way through a consultation period and we're just

[2:54:59] Voice 10: really getting started in terms of what work i need to do here in terms of the comparison i need

[2:55:06] Voice 10: to do the comparisons that you're talking about i've done three for the three different versions

[2:55:12] Voice 10: in its current 2021 uh and well no i i'm gonna do that that's the work to be done yeah but

[2:55:21] Voice 10: my question now is uh the current deadline for submissions is february 2nd is that right

[2:55:30] Voice 4: no that's for the this that's for this ltc to submit um

[2:55:35] Voice 4: of what we've heard from the community.

[2:55:39] Voice 4: And I was just going to ask Jason,

[2:55:42] Voice 4: to hear from the community continues on

[2:55:44] Voice 4: up to second and third reading as well.

[2:55:47] Voice 4: If there's further information to come,

[2:55:49] Voice 4: it still remains open.

[2:55:51] Voice 10: Yeah, there isn't a public hearing requirement

[2:55:54] Voice 10: for the policy statement as there is

[2:55:56] Voice 10: for a local trust committee bylaw

[2:55:58] Voice 10: that sort of shuts the door on receiving further information.

[2:56:01] Voice 10: So you can continue to be in touch with your trustees

[2:56:03] Voice 10: Or we can write to Trust Council after February 2nd and have our views considered.

[2:56:11] Voice 10: That'll go with us.

[2:56:13] Voice 10: Because to me, especially with the BCGEU strike and the impact that that's had on staff and trustees, actually, because a lot of collapsing happened and a lot of picking up

[2:56:26] Voice 3: things.

[2:56:28] Voice 10: things and to me we don't have enough time to do the work that we as community members and as

[2:56:34] Voice 10: stewards of the trust area are obligated to work i think that's our our obligation i

[2:56:40] Voice 4: was going to

[2:56:40] Voice 4: recommend take a look if you go into the trust council agenda for i think it's september 2024

[2:56:46] Voice 4: when the first when trust council got to see the first draft from staff that incorporated the 32

[2:56:54] Voice 4: to recommendations from the previous council and organization take a look at the first draft that

[2:57:00] Voice 4: came back that's the first time uh was it made may 2020 or maybe

[2:57:05] Voice 12: the first time executive committee

[2:57:09] Voice 4: um yeah so we've got the one that went to trust council because there were further changes that

[2:57:13] Voice 4: happened after that so we want the clean one that went to that that trust council got to see

[2:57:17] Voice 4: And I

[2:57:18] Voice 4: think that was September.

[2:57:19] Voice 4: Are

[2:57:19] Voice 10: you saying that that was a staff draft that came through without input from trustees?

[2:57:26] Voice 4: No, that was staff

[2:57:27] Voice 4: that incorporated the 32 amendments from the previous council and First Nations input.

[2:57:33] Voice 4: So once that had all been completed, this trust council got to see it a first time in September 2024.

[2:57:39] Voice 4: So take a

[2:57:40] Voice 4: look at that version.

[2:57:41] Voice 4: The

[2:57:41] Voice 10: changes from the 32 to the 61 now came about from staff rather than trustees?

[2:57:51] Voice 10: No,

[2:57:51] Voice 4: the 32 recommendations for change came from the previous trust council.

[2:57:59] Voice 4: They gave staff 32 recommendations to incorporate as one of the outgoing council directives to staff.

[2:58:08] Voice 4: Staff then did that work.

[2:58:11] Voice 4: They incorporated those 32 recommendations and sent it off to First Nations for engagement

[2:58:18] Voice 4: and incorporated what they heard.

[2:58:22] Voice 4: And then this trust council got to see it for the first time in September.

[2:58:26] Voice 4: It did

[2:58:27] Voice 4: take so long.

[2:58:28] Voice 10: But you were right earlier when you said that was sent out in 2021 for comment.

[2:58:33] Voice 10: so

[2:58:34] Voice 12: 2022 we had a list of revisions and there was a draft that went out in 2022

[2:58:44] Voice 11: to

[2:58:45] Voice 12: indigenous governing bodies and this was to respect their request to have early engagement

[2:58:51] Voice 12: that would inform the draft that we eventually saw so this did come after the first time trustees

[2:58:58] Voice 12: looked at it was in fact 2024 may 2024 when i first saw the executive committee when we were

[2:59:05] Voice 12: sort of planning out how are we going to engage with everybody so all of these structural revisions

[2:59:12] Voice 12: including remove detailed commitments of trust council from each subsection instead develop more

[2:59:17] Voice 12: general guiding principles in accordance with the object of the trust came from the previous council

[2:59:23] Voice 14: we

[2:59:23] Voice 12: didn't get to weigh in on that until we saw it in may what

[2:59:27] Voice 4: you saw we didn't

[2:59:27] Voice 12: get to weigh in on

[2:59:28] Voice 4: that you

[2:59:28] Voice 12: got to see an early version there was still work from First Nations that was going in

[2:59:33] Voice 12: so it's been a very iterative draft I'd say yeah so

[2:59:37] Voice 12: so getting to first reading is the first

[2:59:39] Voice 12: opportunity that we have okay there's a draft that's collected everything all the opinions and

[2:59:45] Voice 12: all the feedback from early engagement of First Nations and we were comfortable enough with it

[2:59:52] Voice 12: to have it go out of the comment it doesn't mean i 100 support all these policies there was this is

[3:00:00] Voice 12: different opinion on council right now but you need staff to hold on that's jason's job now is

[3:00:06] Voice 12: to go through all the agency referrals that are coming back and then propose well here's what

[3:00:13] Voice 12: here's what we heard and what we learned we want to amend this or does it go back to first reading

[3:00:18] Voice 12: because we're going to invent it so significantly exactly and then we go through the process again

[3:00:23] Voice 12: thank you

[3:00:24] Voice 12: oh actually it doesn't have to go back to first reading it's second reading if it gets

[3:00:29] Voice 12: amended substantially substantially yes then it would have to and we wouldn't accomplish that

[3:00:34] Voice 12: this term but i will say for the record that if just one policy makes it in please 3.11

[3:00:41] Voice 12: and the whole thing stays the same as it is we will at least protect

[3:00:50] Voice 12: the engagement with first nations that we are already doing that the minister has directed

[3:00:54] Voice 12: but yeah it was just to do it's

[3:00:56] Voice 10: it's good to think that that might be an option that trust council

[3:00:59] Voice 10: would consider yeah

[3:01:00] Voice 12: i'm open to it because well there's nothing else okay any other questions

[3:01:14] Voice 10: so partly an observation partly a challenge

[3:01:23] Voice 10: So I didn't make it a habit when I'm in social settings here where I'm talking to people

[3:01:30] Voice 10: that, and there's a general conversation, I asked them what do they feel are the most

[3:01:38] Voice 10: compelling reasons that they came here.

[3:01:42] Voice 10: The community is one of them, but almost invariably, it's about the environment, the ecological

[3:01:48] Voice 10: aspects of the natural landscape and all of that.

[3:01:52] Voice 10: So from people's, I'd say, as difficult as it is to get consensus, that's probably the

[3:02:00] Voice 10: closest thing you can get to consensus on some benefits.

[3:02:04] Voice 10: it. The prior versions of the policy statement are declarative relative to the trust object and

[3:02:17] Voice 10: it is declarative in this version which is preservation protection of the trust area

[3:02:23] Voice 10: environment. The standing version goes into the discussion about stewardship

[3:02:30] Voice 10: and although it's defined in the current version I can't find where it's actually

[3:02:34] Voice 10: I want to pick up on what Bruce said, Paul said, Frank said, in a way, environmental

[3:02:48] Voice 10: considerations top primacy over everything.

[3:02:52] Voice 10: And I was a little distressed to hear from the chair that there are maybe situations

[3:03:00] Voice 10: where there are other considerations that take precedent.

[3:03:03] Voice 14: But

[3:03:04] Voice 10: yet there was a description, as I went into an example, of actions that are being taken that are actually directly in support of restoration of the ecosystem.

[3:03:19] Voice 10: Restoration of the environment, continuity of forest areas, those sorts of things.

[3:03:23] Voice 10: You know, I'm reminded, as recently as this morning, Christian sent me a study from Denmark, sent me a study that looks at ecosystem health and environmental variation.

[3:03:43] Voice 10: And it talks about rising concerns relative to pathogen spread and so forth.

[3:03:52] Voice 10: As you diminish diversity, you create greater risk.

[3:03:57] Voice 10: And so we're already in a situation where we see how things have been damaged and haven't necessarily been healed.

[3:04:08] Voice 10: And there are, but there are measures that can be taken that are small, say incremental, that can contribute towards that. And so, for example, the cluster of housing development we talked about, rainwater capture in the pond area, maybe there's some forest restoration.

[3:04:27] Voice 10: In prior versions, and I think it's in the 2021 version, it made a reference to developed

[3:04:33] Voice 10: care.

[3:04:33] Voice 10: And all of the care was a document that I understand was created with input from biologists,

[3:04:41] Voice 10: climate scientists, and so forth, and talks about, the example was raised here, talks

[3:04:49] Voice 10: about creating, if you will, an environmental audit of an existing property relative to

[3:04:56] Voice 10: considerations around what can be done to heal there may be there may be some damaged ecosystem

[3:05:02] Voice 10: what can be done in that approval that helps to like maybe there's been a wetland

[3:05:09] Voice 10: destruction or you know the forest has been overlawn or whatever what can be done to mitigate

[3:05:17] Voice 10: And so for me, the primacy is we can all contribute towards the health of this place, the health

[3:05:29] Voice 10: of the environment.

[3:05:29] Voice 10: It benefits all of us.

[3:05:31] Voice 10: And so I appreciate the various tensions that are there and there might be that consideration

[3:05:38] Voice 10: that says, well, in this case, we'll overlook that because this is more important.

[3:05:43] Voice 10: But I would argue that there's always measures that can be taken.

[3:05:48] Voice 10: And so I worry that this may be vague enough, or it's done an admirable job in terms of

[3:05:57] Voice 10: bringing in voices that weren't there before.

[3:06:01] Voice 10: Maybe that voice has been somewhat diminished in the process unintentionally, or maybe that's

[3:06:08] Voice 10: my perception when I read everything I see, you know, like from the whole indigenous consultation

[3:06:15] Voice 10: is now embedded in there responsibly and necessarily so, how have we gone far enough in terms of

[3:06:26] Voice 10: creating a construct that necessitates that the OCPs and the leaders of trust areas ensure

[3:06:36] Voice 10: sure that that environmental imperative is given the importance that it needs to and so you know

[3:06:49] Voice 10: we talk about dpas as one mechanism is because that you know doesn't flow from here if there's

[3:06:56] Voice 10: enough there's enough to compel the

[3:06:59] Voice 10: local trust to go down that track i often

[3:07:04] Voice 7: hear you've got a

[3:07:06] Voice 12: lot sorry just just pausing because i'm trying to there's a lot of in your so does the trust

[3:07:16] Voice 12: are we able to regulate activities on the land that can lead to restoration rehabilitation

[3:07:25] Voice 12: Rehabilitation, like, more than...

[3:07:27] Voice 12: To

[3:07:27] Voice 10: support the environmental impairment of the object

[3:07:32] Voice 10: state.

[3:07:34] Voice 12: Well, I would ask, at what point is the LTC a decider

[3:07:39] Voice 12: in a private property owner's decisions about their land?

[3:07:45] Voice 12: It is only when they're going to do something

[3:07:48] Voice 12: that is contrary to the zoning.

[3:07:53] Voice 12: Like, the layout is already there.

[3:07:55] Voice 12: we've got these zones that say in small rural residential you can do this you can have one house

[3:08:01] Voice 12: right that house has to be set back from the neighboring

[3:08:05] Voice 12: property so there's very

[3:08:06] Voice 12: limited ways that we can regulate but through zoning is one of them and that's an official

[3:08:11] Voice 12: community plan if somebody wants to do something different than that they then have to come to

[3:08:16] Voice 12: local trust committee for the variance so i'm asking you what are you looking for in terms of

[3:08:23] Voice 12: like what the LTC can do to limit or inform or shape a person who has a lot because the decision

[3:08:34] Voice 12: points are really if you're going to vary with the prescribed activity that is already there.

[3:08:44] Voice 12: So

[3:08:47] Voice 10: if the primary objective is to protect the environment, and you don't have tools in your OCP to do that, then my view would be you need to create the tools to do that.

[3:09:04] Voice 10: And so, for example, the idea that you would have an assessment by a professional when you make your building permit application.

[3:09:13] Voice 10: So just like you have to go through zoning review, if you're starting from a place where there is a bad evaluation, as is described in developer care,

[3:09:29] Voice 10: then you're giving tools both to the trustees as well as to staff to then look at

[3:09:40] Voice 10: what potential mitigative measures might occur here relative to things like siting.

[3:09:46] Voice 10: Like if I came to you and I said, okay, that's hard, I'm getting right down to the ground.

[3:09:52] Voice 10: So I came to you and said, wait, I want to site my house closer to the side than the site product allows

[3:10:01] Voice 10: because there's a knoll over there on that side because there's a forest area that I want to avoid coming to cut down.

[3:10:08] Voice 10: and I want to do this, let me measure now is I have to come to you on a position of

[3:10:16] Voice 10: variance perspective together. I would say to you there are examples where

[3:10:25] Voice 10: having that knowledge, like so I'm the responsible property owner on the committee and I'm saying I

[3:10:31] Voice 10: want to vary this. However that lot, there might be a beautiful standard carryover in the middle

[3:10:39] Voice 10: And as this all exists right now, I can cut every tree down, and you have no say.

[3:10:45] Voice 10: And I don't think that's right, and I don't think that supports what the objectives are

[3:10:51] Voice 10: from the environmental perspective, and even some of the guiding principles that exist today.

[3:11:01] Voice 10: So I'm saying I worry that in kind of very simplification, streamlining things, appearing a reaction in terms of how others' considerations might be.

[3:11:17] Voice 10: I'm saying I know that many folks don't know how it happens, but I'm worried that those other things get lost in the process.

[3:11:23] Voice 10: And so I would like to see the directive, if you will, be put into the hands of the local trust communities where it gives you more latitude or a tool, if you will, to be able to have those discussions with property owners to benefit everyone.

[3:11:44] Voice 10: this

[3:11:46] Voice 4: is where we come to the crux of where our jurisdiction lies and I'm actually

[3:11:51] Voice 4: going to ask

[3:11:52] Voice 4: Stan Williams to weigh in on as far as it

[3:11:57] Voice 12: comes to jurisdiction and private property owners rights

[3:12:00] Voice 12: with regards to the local trust committee have it creating tools have a say in how they're

[3:12:11] Voice 12: are permitted to use that property is outside of what we are legally legislated to do.

[3:12:20] Voice 12: The

[3:12:21] Voice 10: legal definition says that your property rights are circumscribed by the bylaws to be placed in place.

[3:12:28] Voice 12: We don't have authority over forest management, for instance.

[3:12:32] Voice 12: So the tool to protect forests would be through a DPA.

[3:12:35] Voice 12: So if we have a DPA in place, you can enforce that.

[3:12:40] Voice 12: If your community does not have DPAs, you can't retroactively apply a regulation that

[3:12:47] Voice 12: is administratively unfair.

[3:12:50] Voice 12: So the right place for your community priorities on how does preservation and protection of

[3:12:57] Voice 12: the environment express itself on South Thunder, the appropriate place to do that is OCPs,

[3:13:02] Voice 12: zoning, and your land use bylaws.

[3:13:04] Voice 12: That's why we're having these conversations, not going to refer to the land use bylaw amendment

[3:13:09] Voice 12: in the process but we can't regulate treatment broad scale unless we use the tools that are in

[3:13:17] Voice 12: our authority and i'm going to throw the question originally back to to something so we'd like to

[3:13:22] Voice 12: to weigh in on uh we cannot um as far as

[3:13:27] Voice 12: i've said we cannot create tools to say prior to an owner

[3:13:32] Voice 12: doing anything on the land we're going to have some professionals move your property and provide

[3:13:37] Voice 12: assessments on it that's uh like like um development approval information law no no i'm not

[3:13:44] Voice 12: talking development approval i'm talking like if somebody wants to cut the tree down we can't we

[3:13:49] Voice 12: can't say i think what was being asked for is um it's just about it like here is to have a

[3:13:54] Voice 12: professional wolf the property do an assessment map the property for its current state and then

[3:14:00] Voice 12: create a humanity human report to bring it back that i think is outside of what we're committed

[3:14:07] Voice 12: to create that's the one that's why i'm asking yeah

[3:14:11] Voice 10: i mean what i'm hearing and again

[3:14:13] Voice 10: my colleague as well see if she has any controls to contribute but yeah there simply there needs

[3:14:19] Voice 10: to be a corresponding authority that the local government has under the local government after

[3:14:26] Voice 10: the community charter and you know we're the the mechanism and i know i probably sound like

[3:14:32] Voice 10: a broken record the mechanism to do what is being described is most likely a development permit area

[3:14:38] Voice 10: for the protection of some particular ecosystem value and then the guidelines that you apply

[3:14:45] Voice 10: to evaluate whether that permit should be issued could very well say something along the lines of

[3:14:50] Voice 10: a registered professional biologist must confirm the proposed development is consistent with

[3:14:54] Voice 10: development, develop with care, or something. I don't know if I would recommend referencing

[3:14:59] Voice 10: another document, but that's kind of the tool. Now, one other tool is, so is it North Pender

[3:15:07] Voice 10: that has raptor tree bylaws?

[3:15:10] Voice 3: And is that, is that any other type of supplementation?

[3:15:14] Voice 10: It's a development permit.

[3:15:14] Voice 10: Okay, so same sort of thing. Again, it's that development permit area tool.

[3:15:17] Voice 10: What I may be hearing from John is that you would like Trust Council, through the policy

[3:15:27] Voice 10: statement, to tell local trust committees what tools they need to apply rather than

[3:15:32] Voice 10: ...

[3:15:33] Voice 10: In

[3:15:33] Voice 14: a way, yes.

[3:15:34] Voice 10: I mean, strengthen that position so that that is addressed at the local trust level.

[3:15:46] Voice 10: Because we're often hearing, well, we don't have the tools, we can't do this, someone's gone in clear-cut, you can go in and clear-check the law before you even put a building permit application in, all that kind of stuff.

[3:15:58] Voice 10: What I'm hearing is that from a community value perspective, that's contrary to the community value, but yet we don't have the tools.

[3:16:05] Voice 10: And so I'm worried that we're going to have to go through a process now where, as the trust policy statement gets entrenched,

[3:16:14] Voice 10: all the OCPs have to be revised and we're into this long discussion about what's suitable or not suitable and the other else.

[3:16:22] Voice 10: I just worry it doesn't go far enough.

[3:16:25] Voice 10: I feel like in light of what we know now relative to environmental degradation and everything

[3:16:32] Voice 10: else, we're not going down the fine line.

[3:16:37] Voice 10: I

[3:16:38] Voice 12: think part of that is jurisdiction on areas we don't have a jurisdiction for, so the only

[3:16:44] Voice 4: way that

[3:16:45] Voice 12: that is applicable is through a DPA, and that would be in the local trust committee

[3:16:48] Voice 12: to determine whether it's been approved as well.

[3:16:50] Voice 12: some local clubs do it island-wide for specific reasons. Those are not always recommended because

[3:16:57] Voice 4: a blanket at the PA can cause more difficulty in hardship than a specific and a blanket one

[3:17:06] Voice 4: can be weakened as well because

[3:17:07] Voice 12: it's going to be. So the tool that we do have that we're not

[3:17:13] Voice 12: using enough of and it already is the Trust Council Policy 2.18 Development Approvals

[3:17:20] Voice 12: information bylaw and that is stopped so there is a an ability for local trust committees to create

[3:17:29] Voice 12: development approval information bylaws that are appropriate to their areas of circumstance for

[3:17:34] Voice 12: trust counsel's consideration I would say that's at the local trust committee level that is already

[3:17:42] Voice 12: here it already exists it's you'd have to revise your OCP and then following that you create there's

[3:17:49] Voice 12: a process to create a Development Approval Information By-law which could be applied

[3:17:53] Voice 12: to every single property.

[3:17:54] Voice 10: So

[3:17:54] Voice 12: that would be By-law 1, 2,

[3:17:55] Voice 10: 3, and so on,

[3:17:58] Voice 12: I'm not sure.

[3:17:58] Voice 12: No, no.

[3:17:59] Voice 10: 1,

[3:17:59] Voice 9: 2, 3, and so on.

[3:18:03] Voice 12: Under the local government policy, under the Local Government Act, you can create Development

[3:18:08] Voice 12: Approval Information By-laws, which the kind of information you're looking for, what are

[3:18:14] Voice 12: the ecosystem features what are the cultural features on the property on how are those

[3:18:20] Voice 12: protected each property owner would have to go through the process to satisfy but that bylaw

[3:18:26] Voice 12: needs to be in place first

[3:18:27] Voice 10: so proposed by law one two three that was put forward by the prior

[3:18:31] Voice 10: council it was when one of your first actions was to not put it forward because there was a

[3:18:38] Voice 10: my understanding was there was a consultation process with first nations

[3:18:42] Voice 10: One of the first actions was to re-table.

[3:18:46] Voice 10: You

[3:18:46] Voice 12: said no further because we didn't want to do one project at a time, the Minister

[3:18:49] Voice 12: had rejected it.

[3:18:51] Voice 12: But

[3:18:51] Voice 10: that's an example of

[3:18:54] Voice 9: what we were doing.

[3:18:54] Voice 9: That

[3:18:54] Voice 12: specifically was proposing to change the OCP with a preamble.

[3:18:59] Voice 12: It had nothing to do with the development.

[3:19:00] Voice 12: It was

[3:19:01] Voice 12: changing a preamble of acknowledging the place in which we are.

[3:19:07] Voice 12: and there was

[3:19:08] Voice 12: sighting and guidelines in there as well.

[3:19:12] Voice 12: We're at the end of the weeds of...

[3:19:15] Voice 12: This is like rooting far down

[3:19:16] Voice 12: into regulations, and this has to be a policy issue.

[3:19:19] Voice 10: I know, but the policy, my worry is the more holes you create, the more things, certain things,

[3:19:27] Voice 10: maybe other things take precedent, or anything else, is that the consequence of that is the roots.

[3:19:34] Voice 10: So

[3:19:35] Voice 12: think of a policy that would enshrine a protection that you see as needed.

[3:19:41] Voice 12: What would that look like?

[3:19:43] Voice 12: That every official community plan should make provision to adopting a bylaw

[3:19:50] Voice 12: for development of people's information or something.

[3:19:53] Voice 12: And I don't know if that is going

[3:19:56] Voice 12: to give you the kind of information you're looking for,

[3:19:59] Voice 12: but it has to be broad enough to apply to all trust areas.

[3:20:02] Voice 12: It cannot be specific to or contravene what a community's OCP is going to do.

[3:20:11] Voice 12: I get that this feels too broad to be effective, but

[3:20:17] Voice 10: it's a guiding principle.

[3:20:18] Voice 10: So you

[3:20:18] Voice 10: say it has to be specific enough, that is to say, in areas where...

[3:20:23] Voice 10: No,

[3:20:23] Voice 12: it has to be applicable to all islands. This document has to be applicable to all islands.

[3:20:28] Voice 10: Okay, so you make a statement that says on all islands, areas that have been identified as being within sensitive ecosystems must create development programs.

[3:20:46] Voice 10: You're saying it's that specific?

[3:20:47] Voice 10: that would go with that claim we

[3:20:48] Voice 12: include a directive for a dai bylaw because that's

[3:20:53] Voice 12: some that's subject to certain um the legislative requirements are that they must have a bylaw

[3:21:01] Voice 12: establishing policies and procedures for development information applicable to local

[3:21:06] Voice 12: trust areas so there's a bit of a process um and this still has to fill within our jurisdiction

[3:21:14] Voice 12: This can't go outside and say, again, this can't be, we can't do this and say, no tree

[3:21:19] Voice 12: cutting.

[3:21:20] Voice 12: That's outside of our jurisdiction.

[3:21:22] Voice 12: That doesn't cover it more.

[3:21:24] Voice 12: I'd be interested to see if the DAI by-law could do what you're wanting, but that is

[3:21:30] Voice 12: again, not the local trust committee by-law.

[3:21:32] Voice 12: It isn't enacted in the policy statement.

[3:21:34] Voice 12: The

[3:21:35] Voice 13: DAI by-law lays out what the advocate needs to provide in terms of professional

[3:21:40] Voice 13: professional reports in relation to a temporary use permit or a development permit or a rezoning

[3:21:47] Voice 13: application okay that's what it's used for okay yeah so

[3:21:52] Voice 12: it's not right it cannot be used

[3:21:53] Voice 12: retroactively or

[3:21:54] Voice 10: it is not a regulation yeah it

[3:21:57] Voice 10: is like here are the types of reports we've

[3:21:59] Voice 10: expected in the following sets of services thank

[3:22:03] Voice 12: you yeah okay that's not what i was hoping it was

[3:22:10] Voice 12: couldn't we get that kind of information for every property require it no if you have a

[3:22:16] Voice 12: development permit area that's an entire island there you go yeah then you would need to demonstrate

[3:22:22] Voice 12: here's how i meet the criteria that's already set out um for development on my property

[3:22:31] Voice 12: that's only after this is in place it's there's very little that can be done in the policy space

[3:22:38] Voice 12: that level it's so hard but identify forest like you can just take that one 3.3.3 identify forest

[3:22:46] Voice 12: ecosystem and prioritize the preservation protection restoration of unfragmented forest like

[3:22:52] Voice 12: i don't know how a policy in south pender would uphold that that's a pretty high bar right there

[3:23:00] Voice 12: which

[3:23:00] Voice 9: is a fun amount of questions all of this is how is it yeah

[3:23:03] Voice 9: yes well

[3:23:05] Voice 12: this this is this is

[3:23:08] Voice 12: this is what's going to feed into any OCD with reason and revision that

[3:23:13] Voice 12: that's you know like

[3:23:14] Voice 4: we have to start thinking about how are we going to implement this in our OCD how do we

[3:23:22] Voice 4: force our agenda how is this best realized to give them our community our public our environment

[3:23:29] Voice 4: our um our water all of that we have to sit down now and start really thinking about

[3:23:35] Voice 4: How are we creating an OCP? Because the OCP is the first, like, it's sort of the most defined measuring

[3:23:49] Voice 12: block against the virus.

[3:23:52] Voice 7: Exactly.

[3:23:56] Voice 4: So while this is more vague, you can get more specific in your OCP.

[3:24:04] Voice 4: that's what I'm saying. That's where this community has to identify what is most important

[3:24:11] Voice 4: to this community that we can get most specific about in here. If the trust policy statement

[3:24:19] Voice 4: is too specific, it may cut out things that we may want to do here. It may limit the type

[3:24:31] Voice 4: of things that this community finds important. So, having it at a, because this is like,

[3:24:42] Voice 4: in air quotations, more of a guiding document, which

[3:24:44] Voice 12: is why it's a little bit more vain,

[3:24:47] Voice 12: because it's guiding 13 OCDs.

[3:24:51] Voice 12: No, 21.

[3:24:52] Voice 12: Right, 13

[3:24:53] Voice 3: OCDs. There's three

[3:24:54] Voice 12: just in the April local cluster area.

[3:24:56] Voice 12: Yeah, they're

[3:24:56] Voice 12: all very different.

[3:24:57] Voice 12: Yeah. So, yeah.

[3:24:59] Voice 12: Yeah, so I totally take your comments.

[3:25:04] Voice 12: It feels insufficient, not strong enough.

[3:25:07] Voice 12: And yet when you go across the trust area

[3:25:10] Voice 12: and see how they are expressing and interpreting

[3:25:16] Voice 12: of holding the mandate of trust,

[3:25:20] Voice 12: there is a limit to how specific.

[3:25:24] Voice 12: But should the commitments go back in,

[3:25:27] Voice 12: go back to that list from previous trust counsel,

[3:25:31] Voice 12: I would ask, what weight is a commitment?

[3:25:35] Voice 12: Is it a stronger thing than a guiding principle?

[3:25:38] Voice 12: It's a good question.

[3:25:39] Voice 10: It's a policy.

[3:25:39] Voice 10: It is, and there's a good,

[3:25:41] Voice 10: and I'm not going to hurt anybody with that here,

[3:25:44] Voice 10: but there is a distinction, a law between a guideline,

[3:25:47] Voice 10: as Trustee Evans pointed out,

[3:25:50] Voice 10: and a policy, which a commitment is a kind word to call,

[3:25:55] Voice 10: that's a policy.

[3:25:56] Voice 10: One has greater weight in terms of the adjudication process,

[3:26:00] Voice 10: But leaving that aside, I had my hand up a while ago.

[3:26:04] Voice 13: I

[3:26:04] Voice 10: just want to

[3:26:05] Voice 13: say that we have about 10 minutes before we should think about that.

[3:26:10] Voice 13: Thank you.

[3:26:13] Voice 10: And my question really goes to that default DPA option.

[3:26:18] Voice 10: In order to protect particular sensitive ecosystems, the DPA is the most effective mechanism to do that.

[3:26:27] Voice 10: It seems to me that one of the sensitive ecosystems that we have that's common to every island

[3:26:37] Voice 14: is

[3:26:38] Voice 10: the shoreline zone.

[3:26:41] Voice 10: I think on Capriola you have a map that has 200 meters zone around the shorelines identified as a zone.

[3:26:49] Voice 10: uh it seems to me that this trust policy statement needs to have something in it about dpas

[3:26:56] Voice 10: and so for example i'll just give you an example that um uh recognizing that coastal zones contain

[3:27:05] Voice 10: some of the most sensitive ecosystems each uh local trust area shall enact in their bylaws

[3:27:13] Voice 10: a determination of whether and to what extent they establish DPAs on sensitive ecosystems

[3:27:22] Voice 10: within the shoreline, the 200-meter shoreline zone, so that they put their mind to whether

[3:27:30] Voice 10: or not they're going to protect that in a way that they have the tools that you're talking

[3:27:35] Voice 10: about, John, to protect that sensitive ecosystem.

[3:27:39] Voice 10: You can do the same thing with watersheds.

[3:27:41] Voice 10: You can do the same thing so that same local trust committees put your mind to it, decide whether or to what extent that's appropriate.

[3:27:55] Voice 10: Now, different islands are going to take that differently, but the fact that every island is required to put their mind to that gives you some sense of there is mechanism on the ground

[3:28:07] Voice 10: that will involve a discussion with planners

[3:28:10] Voice 10: and before a development is approved.

[3:28:15] Voice 10: So, you know, if you say that on these three conditions,

[3:28:19] Voice 10: you require a preliminary assessment of whatever in the DPA.

[3:28:26] Voice 10: So it seems to me that that's a key missing piece

[3:28:29] Voice 10: in the trust policy statement.

[3:28:31] Voice 10: And so I want to think that through,

[3:28:34] Voice 10: partly because of what I've heard here today,

[3:28:36] Voice 10: is to how to articulate that to trust council in terms of your big decision which uh and um yeah

[3:28:47] Voice 12: i think my question would be can we can we direct ltcs that they must develop dbas i think the dpa

[3:28:55] Voice 12: is a tool that's accessible

[3:28:57] Voice 4: to all ltcs i don't know the local direct as as trust council but

[3:29:02] Voice 4: but they must develop

[3:29:02] Voice 4: DPAs for that area.

[3:29:04] Voice 4: You

[3:29:04] Voice 10: didn't hear me say direct.

[3:29:06] Voice 4: Oh, no, you're saying put it in a directive

[3:29:08] Voice 4: in the trust policy statement.

[3:29:10] Voice 10: I'm saying that simply put,

[3:29:13] Voice 10: that local trust committees determine whether

[3:29:17] Voice 10: and to what extent a DPA is required

[3:29:22] Voice 10: within the 200-foot, 200-meter zone or shoreline zone

[3:29:28] Voice 10: so that they can decide to do it or not do it

[3:29:31] Voice 10: If they decide to do it, they can decide to what extent they're going to do it.

[3:29:35] Voice 10: So there may be 12 key places on South Pender on the shoreline zone that would merit a DPA for protection.

[3:29:44] Voice 10: Trees would be one. I mean, there's rock and water.

[3:29:48] Voice 10: Yeah, I mean,

[3:29:50] Voice 10: your land has some important old shrub trees on it.

[3:29:55] Voice 10: OK, let's talk about particular.

[3:29:57] Voice 10: No, but I'm just saying that there may be.

[3:29:59] Voice 12: OK.

[3:30:00] Voice 10: So

[3:30:00] Voice 12: I want to get to something practical here.

[3:30:02] Voice 12: I hear you determine whether and to what extent a development permit area can protect the shoreline.

[3:30:09] Voice 12: So I want to ask staff, and maybe we can come back with some answers on this.

[3:30:14] Voice 12: Does putting, you know, whether a development permit area or other means,

[3:30:22] Voice 12: putting that into prioritized shoreline protection,

[3:30:27] Voice 12: Is that, like, do you need to put the tools in there, or should you just put, here's the goal, and here's what we want to see happen?

[3:30:37] Voice 12: If

[3:30:38] Voice 10: you want to do that, you put it in the directive policy.

[3:30:40] Voice 12: So I was going to say, we do

[3:30:41] Voice 4: have a number of directive policies regarding shoreline protection and things like that currently.

[3:30:48] Voice 4: So, yeah, we can take a look at, I guess I'll have to take a look at, I think it's like 10, like a number of different ones where it's mentioned.

[3:30:57] Voice 4: um because what we want to do is make sure that we're not duplicating um directives that we already

[3:31:04] Voice 4: have and we don't want to have them too close because then it creates conflict but it doesn't

[3:31:12] Voice 4: mean that we can't include the wording

[3:31:13] Voice 12: i'm all for strengthening as

[3:31:16] Voice 4: long as it

[3:31:17] Voice 12: is um like i've

[3:31:21] Voice 12: heard some good feedback on forest protection policies like what else was missing that was

[3:31:25] Voice 12: missing coordination policies might be needed again I don't know I'm not sure if we're missing

[3:31:33] Voice 12: anything in shoreline protection policies but if we can strengthen them like we should so I think

[3:31:39] Voice 12: but should we say local trust committees not make an OCP in which development permanent area

[3:31:48] Voice 12: is one of the tools considered that's already made right it's when your OCP is drafted that

[3:31:55] Voice 12: it feeds back up and then you compare it well does it incorporate current and anticipated impacts of

[3:32:01] Voice 12: sea level rise does it prioritize and foster soft shoreline approaches does it prohibit the

[3:32:06] Voice 12: mortgage of vessels like what are the policies against which that would be tested yeah and what

[3:32:10] Voice 10: what is the enforcement for that when you identify that well that's yeah

[3:32:17] Voice 12: dpa's like oh my gosh we'll have a talk offline about that

[3:32:24] Voice 12: Yeah, like just because you have the tool that you're absolutely right, the enforcement at the other end, and how much is Islands Trust able to defend bylaws?

[3:32:36] Voice 12: So actually, the impact to taxpayers on the defence is going to be a critical question.

[3:32:45] Voice 12: We can have great policies, we can have wealthy people who just jump over them, and we then

[3:32:53] Voice 12: have to go to court to defend them.

[3:32:55] Voice 12: So you have to be very precise if you're going to make a policy and you're going to create

[3:33:00] Voice 12: a bylaw to it and you're going to be able to enforce it, it has to be quite right.

[3:33:06] Voice 12: Steward with care has to have a set of criteria, right, because when it gets down to how are

[3:33:12] Voice 12: you doing this? How are you executing that? There is, yes, no, a plan, right? It's not interpretable.

[3:33:20] Voice 12: Two

[3:33:21] Voice 10: really quick.

[3:33:22] Voice 12: Very quick. So

[3:33:23] Voice 10: 2.1.2 combines environmental and inclusionist cultural

[3:33:31] Voice 10: maybe they should be

[3:33:32] Voice 12: separated. Okay, so 2.1.2, just for the record, 2.1, prioritize environmental

[3:33:42] Voice 12: environmental and

[3:33:42] Voice 4: religious, cultural, and narrative connection.

[3:33:47] Voice 10: My last one is, what happened to casinos?

[3:33:54] Voice 12: It's still in there. There's no casinos.

[3:33:57] Voice 12: It's in there. It's under growth and development.

[3:34:03] Voice 12: Yeah, it is.

[3:34:03] Voice 12: Definition game ability 3.4.34.

[3:34:08] Voice 4: Prohibit destination games, especially sections of casinos and commercial games.

[3:34:11] Voice 4: And with that, thank you

[3:34:17] Voice 10: all for the patience that you've had today, and the extent to which you have hurt us,

[3:34:26] Voice 10: but I think there is a long way to go, and to me, we've had a good start.

[3:34:32] Voice 10: Before we

[3:34:33] Voice 4: go, I was going to say one of the key ways to help with the...

[3:34:36] Voice 4: Call for a German reboot.

[3:34:38] Voice 4: Bye, everybody.

[3:34:39] Voice 4: Education.

[3:34:40] Voice 4: Take years.

[3:34:41] Voice 12: Absolutely.