Islands Trust Council regular meeting, July 6, 2026

[0:00:01] Voice 8: We're coming

[0:00:02] Voice 1: online here.

[0:00:10] Voice 5: Okay, there we go. The magic words. Thank you so much.

[0:00:15] Voice 5: All right. Good morning, everyone. Today, July 6, we are calling the meeting of the

[0:00:22] Voice 5: Leskete Island Local Trust Committee to order. We have our regular business meeting and an

[0:00:28] Voice 5: agenda before us. But before we start, I just want to acknowledge the place in which we

[0:00:34] Voice 5: lived and acknowledges the land on which we gather and we're making decisions today is within the

[0:00:40] Voice 5: traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples of Qualicum, Stonoss and the Tla'Amin peoples

[0:00:47] Voice 5: in whose lands and waters the Islands Trust and Hoyete Island is located. The Liskete Island Local

[0:00:54] Voice 5: Trust Committee is committed to reconciliation and the acknowledgement of Indigenous place and

[0:00:59] Voice 5: and history. And I also want to acknowledge the work of the Laskete community in through

[0:01:06] Voice 5: the Hoyete Archaeology Project. This significant project has brought forward the stories and

[0:01:12] Voice 5: connections of Indigenous peoples since time immemorial to this special place. And it's

[0:01:19] Voice 5: a tremendous credit to this community. It has gone a long way to restoring and reorienting

[0:01:25] Voice 5: the lived experiences of the Qualicum, Sla'aman and Tsina'as peoples' historical and ongoing

[0:01:32] Voice 5: relationships to this land, to their culture, the ecology and the spirit of this place that

[0:01:38] Voice 5: continues to this day. So I just wanted to acknowledge the people in this community who

[0:01:42] Voice 5: have brought that together and we're together enforcing or recognizing and walking together

[0:01:50] Voice 5: other in the stories of this place

[0:01:51] Voice 7: so

[0:01:53] Voice 5: our local trustees i'm joined by

[0:01:55] Voice 5: michaela laroney tim peterson did y'all want to say a few

[0:01:58] Voice 5: words our last

[0:02:00] Voice 16: reports coming up yeah reports

[0:02:02] Voice 5: okay it's our last in-person uh local trust committee meeting of

[0:02:07] Voice 5: this term and um so it's really wonderful to be

[0:02:11] Voice 5: with you in person uh we're joined by staff online um

[0:02:16] Voice 5: Our regional planning manager, Renee Jamarat, an island planner, Marlis McCargar, and our meeting facilitator and minute taker, Lisa Millard, who is training also one of our staff in the northern office.

[0:02:32] Voice 5: And so they're supporting this meeting electronically today.

[0:02:36] Voice 5: This meeting is being recorded and live streamed for viewing about five days after it will be available on the website.

[0:02:42] Voice 5: site. So I just wanted to take a moment to share a story actually about protocols and what it means

[0:02:54] Voice 5: to maintain a respectful meeting place here. We've had challenges over the last term, some of them

[0:03:02] Voice 5: due to me being a new chair. But I think there's been ongoing challenges with what does it mean

[0:03:10] Voice 5: to conduct ourselves in a respectful way in these meetings and to ensure that it is a safe

[0:03:17] Voice 5: place for all. Safety is a key marker for all cultures to be able to participate.

[0:03:26] Voice 5: So what does that mean? And I just wanted to share a brief story that happened to me this morning.

[0:03:31] Voice 5: i was loading on the gabriel the ferry uh to come here obviously and the ferry has a new name

[0:03:39] Voice 5: that's been given by the name of people and i was like oh there's the new name and i raised my phone

[0:03:46] Voice 5: to take a picture of it as i'm driving on the ferry completely illegal wrong and the ferry

[0:03:53] Voice 5: captain is right there and he comes up to me he says what

[0:03:57] Voice 8: are you doing that

[0:03:59] Voice 5: is illegal i could

[0:04:01] Voice 5: could kick you off this ferry and I have a mind to do that right now this is totally unsafe it is

[0:04:06] Voice 5: against the regulations it is illegal and I have the right to kick you off this ferry and I was

[0:04:12] Voice 5: like I am so sorry it was just I'm apologized all over the place you're absolutely right

[0:04:18] Voice 5: this was completely wrong of me and I will never do it again so he let me on the ferry

[0:04:24] Voice 5: but it reminded me about there are certain rules in place for safety the safety of the crew

[0:04:32] Voice 5: safety of passengers the safety of my vehicle and other vehicles as we're boarding that is a certain

[0:04:38] Voice 5: place where there's certain regulations in place and they're different than the regulations in

[0:04:43] Voice 5: other places and so when it comes to safety in this meeting place this is a public place that

[0:04:51] Voice 5: So we convene together with members of the public, and we're all here to discuss your local community business.

[0:04:58] Voice 5: But there are other matters, too.

[0:05:00] Voice 5: There are matters that concern other peoples who may not be residents of the silence, but who have a very strong relationship to it.

[0:05:08] Voice 5: And we're trying to bring all that information together so we can look at it in a good way.

[0:05:14] Voice 5: So in this context, the chair is the captain.

[0:05:17] Voice 5: often the chair does set out and it's the job of the chair to maintain the meeting decorum and the

[0:05:24] Voice 5: order so whoever is in this role female off island local trustee whoever is chairing a meeting

[0:05:31] Voice 5: that role has a certain is accorded a respect and is accorded the right to make rulings and

[0:05:41] Voice 5: decisions about how a meeting proceeds and it has been a challenge in this community to chair and to

[0:05:50] Voice 5: run a meeting because we're continually battling with this who has a right to say what and your

[0:05:57] Voice 5: community runs in a beautiful way in with its own rules and its own processes and outside this

[0:06:04] Voice 5: this meeting your community members can you run your meetings how you want to run them

[0:06:10] Voice 5: but here when we're gathering together you do need to we do need to respect the chair

[0:06:16] Voice 5: so I'm just putting that forward as a thought for next term whoever comes in this role

[0:06:24] Voice 5: I would hope that you listen and tune to what is the right way to achieve and maintain a

[0:06:33] Voice 5: respectful place that all members of the public can come to so that when we're having discussions

[0:06:39] Voice 5: about especially reconciliation inclusivity um when we speak of cultural safety it's for the

[0:06:47] Voice 5: safety of all concerned that everyone feels comfortable and can come here and there's one

[0:06:52] Voice 5: person that says this is how we maintain the meeting order that's just like the captain on a

[0:06:57] Voice 5: show and so um it's not me personally that you do or over respect to it's to the office of the

[0:07:04] Voice 5: chair so they can do the job and the local trust committee can conduct its work so um we do want to

[0:07:13] Voice 5: um yeah i'll just leave it there so we'll go into our trustees reports uh

[0:07:21] Voice 16: approval of agenda

[0:07:22] Voice 5: ah yes thank you so any items i have

[0:07:26] Voice 16: an item done

[0:07:27] Voice 5: all right uh

[0:07:28] Voice 16: other new business i think

[0:07:29] Voice 16: Community Stewardship Board event.

[0:07:32] Voice 5: Excellent. So 12.1, Community Stewardship

[0:07:37] Voice 5: Event. Any other items to add or amend? All right, I'll take it by general consent

[0:07:44] Voice 5: that the agenda is approved as amended. Now we'll move into Section 4 reports. So

[0:07:59] Voice 4: I have a lot to report, we've had a great arts fest with an incredible music lineup

[0:08:05] Voice 4: and we keep having all these people passing in our community, but there are more babies

[0:08:11] Voice 4: I think growing, so that is fantastic, yeah, various issues, you know, like life is beautiful

[0:08:19] Voice 4: on the island, I'm reflecting back on this term, I learned a lot about myself, looking

[0:08:28] Voice 4: at my community government process so it's been a ride that's all i have to answer okay

[0:08:39] Voice 4: okay

[0:08:40] Voice 16: so i will report out a little bit on the june trust council meeting trust council reviewed some

[0:08:47] Voice 16: updated candidate information and new council orientation program briefings so for anyone who's

[0:08:54] Voice 16: who's considering running for election in October.

[0:08:57] Voice 16: Helpful materials there.

[0:08:59] Voice 16: Also invite you to reach out to myself or Trustee Leroni.

[0:09:04] Voice 16: We'll now have a little bit more in depth

[0:09:06] Voice 16: on what the role of Trustee entails.

[0:09:10] Voice 16: This council also announced the 2026 Islands Trust

[0:09:14] Voice 16: Community Stewardship Awards.

[0:09:15] Voice 16: And I'm happy to note that our local Liskety resident,

[0:09:18] Voice 16: Sheila Harrington, was one of the recipients.

[0:09:21] Voice 16: We'll be talking about an award ceremony event a little bit later and we'll make sure that

[0:09:28] Voice 16: that info goes out to the public when we know what the dates look like.

[0:09:33] Voice 16: Trust Council also endorsed the First Nations Referral Work Plan, the Indigenous Relations

[0:09:40] Voice 16: Action Plan for 2026-28, amendments and readings of the Trust Council Public Notification By-law

[0:09:50] Voice 16: which I am happy to say is going to be including

[0:09:53] Voice 16: print notifications rather than all electronic.

[0:09:58] Voice 16: Had a presentation from the province

[0:10:01] Voice 16: on the BC coastal marine strategy

[0:10:03] Voice 16: and have sent a letter to the province requesting

[0:10:07] Voice 16: that they consider enshrining that strategy in law.

[0:10:14] Voice 16: Approved the updated policy statement,

[0:10:16] Voice 16: statement amendment policy, plenty of other business.

[0:10:20] Voice 16: And then since our May meeting,

[0:10:23] Voice 16: I have attended a number of different islands,

[0:10:26] Voice 16: trust and related meetings,

[0:10:29] Voice 16: trust programs, committee meeting,

[0:10:31] Voice 16: onboarding working group.

[0:10:33] Voice 16: We had a committee of the whole in May.

[0:10:37] Voice 16: We attended this

[0:10:38] Voice 16: First Nations Human Council meeting as a delegation,

[0:10:43] Voice 16: essentially staff presenting an overview of how Islands Trust works

[0:10:48] Voice 16: following their recent elections.

[0:10:50] Voice 16: I attended the Southern Gulf Islands Forum Cross-Border Forum,

[0:10:55] Voice 16: which was very interesting.

[0:10:57] Voice 16: The CAO Performance Evaluation Committee, Financial Planning Committee,

[0:11:02] Voice 16: Local Leaders for Mental Health,

[0:11:04] Voice 16: a number of the BC Municipal Climate Leaders Caucus meetings,

[0:11:08] Voice 16: including the Trajectory of Awesomeness webinars,

[0:11:12] Voice 16: executive committee meetings. I attended the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Region Roundtable

[0:11:18] Voice 16: Gathering in June on behalf of Chair Patrick. Really interesting there. The Provincial Look

[0:11:24] Voice 16: West webinar, the BC Healthcare Professional Recruitment and Retention Information Session,

[0:11:32] Voice 16: and of course our MLA Stephanie Higginson came to the island June 20th and there was Q&A there.

[0:11:40] Voice 16: and that's my report thank

[0:11:42] Voice 7: you tim and

[0:11:45] Voice 16: i'm hoping that our regional director has

[0:11:48] Voice 16: some info for us on the process for the fcm for ms mature

[0:11:55] Voice 5: great i'll get to you next if you can wait director clark um so thank you for that many of the

[0:12:02] Voice 5: meetings that have taken place executive committee meetings committee of the whole

[0:12:07] Voice 5: relate to the ongoing operation of islands trust um trust council um quarterly meeting as you noted

[0:12:15] Voice 5: is held electronically just in june we did event some of the policy statement work uh the policy

[0:12:22] Voice 5: statement itself which had received first reading um and went for six months of engagement with the

[0:12:30] Voice 5: public we've received a what we heard report discussed it and reviewed some of the agency

[0:12:38] Voice 5: referral information and so the work that is going to happen now between now and end of term

[0:12:45] Voice 5: is to review and organize the agency referral responses that's sort of something that we can

[0:12:54] Voice 5: tackle but the indication is from the ministry that they're going to require more than six months

[0:12:59] Voice 5: to review so even if draft policy statement was to be uh was to receive third reading

[0:13:05] Voice 5: um it would definitely not be completed in time for this term so that'll be a project uh still

[0:13:11] Voice 5: open for next term to undertake we did however review um two pieces of work related to it um

[0:13:19] Voice 5: and i encourage people to take a look there's a policy statement handbook and a draft companion

[0:13:24] Voice 5: companion document um what had been a previous trust council had said take out all the

[0:13:34] Voice 5: contextual statements and the introduction and so on um and put that in a separate companion

[0:13:40] Voice 5: document so you just see the policies and so that has led to some you know folks not understanding

[0:13:46] Voice 5: thinking that all the history and the context and the islands trust and why we're here and what we

[0:13:50] Voice 5: do is taken out but it'll all be in a companion document so we have seen draft of that as well as

[0:13:58] Voice 5: potential ocp policies that could inform ocp development so there's um there's some interesting

[0:14:04] Voice 5: material there if you want to have a look and council also approved uh something that's been

[0:14:10] Voice 5: long in the works the indigenous relations action plan and so that'll be effective from 2026 to 28

[0:14:17] Voice 5: just two years but bringing together all the initiatives um from referral responses to to

[0:14:24] Voice 5: first nations to invitations um to to chief and counselors to to attend meetings or meeting

[0:14:31] Voice 5: schedules all that communication and referral work is sort of in one plan and and staged out

[0:14:37] Voice 5: in terms of how it'll affect operations so that's a really good um that's a piece of work that i

[0:14:44] Voice 5: I encourage everyone to review.

[0:14:46] Voice 5: We do have some upcoming meetings.

[0:14:49] Voice 5: The Conservancy Board, which I sit on, is meeting later this month.

[0:14:53] Voice 5: And following that meeting, we have a liaison with the Executive Committee later that day.

[0:14:58] Voice 5: Once a year, we meet for two hours and talk about, well, they're distinct bodies, but

[0:15:05] Voice 5: But within the Islands Trust, and we often have to work through some key organizational kind of,

[0:15:16] Voice 5: yeah, make sure that we're working together.

[0:15:19] Voice 5: Let's just put it that way.

[0:15:21] Voice 5: And, of course, continue to attend executive committee meetings and regional planning committee.

[0:15:28] Voice 5: That's it for my report.

[0:15:30] Voice 5: Director Fall, if you'd like to.

[0:15:34] Voice 19: So I got

[0:15:35] Voice 9: three short things, regional district business.

[0:15:40] Voice 9: So one is the recycling depot.

[0:15:43] Voice 9: And I didn't report on most of this stuff in my newsletter,

[0:15:45] Voice 9: but the board agreed on request from the waste management advisory committee

[0:15:49] Voice 9: to increase the hours in the winter by two for the store.

[0:15:53] Voice 9: And that was based on the fact that when you look at the material going

[0:15:58] Voice 9: through there, there isn't a lot less in the winter,

[0:16:00] Voice 9: because even though the more people in the summer a lot of the part-time residents take their stuff

[0:16:04] Voice 9: away some full-time residents just produce it and put it there so that came across you know it was

[0:16:10] Voice 9: a little bit late to have a big noticeable impact here but in the next you know the summer hours

[0:16:14] Voice 9: which had those increased hours so more or less it'll continue a couple hours more it's not a lot

[0:16:18] Voice 9: but you know it's money and you got to twist arms and the reason why it's maybe non-trivial is

[0:16:23] Voice 9: because for the board is that the our waste management service is super expensive we're

[0:16:28] Voice 9: We're still paying off millions of dollars of debt

[0:16:30] Voice 9: for this resource recovery center.

[0:16:31] Voice 9: And Laskiti waste costs a lot more per ton

[0:16:35] Voice 9: to deal with than anywhere else

[0:16:37] Voice 9: because we barge our garbage up there

[0:16:39] Voice 9: and then join the rest of it

[0:16:40] Voice 9: to go down on its journey to Washington.

[0:16:42] Voice 9: And we barge our recycling up there to join.

[0:16:44] Voice 9: So anyways, that's a good thing for us.

[0:16:47] Voice 9: The work resolution that Trustee Peterson talked about.

[0:16:49] Voice 9: So we, as I report, as we both reported,

[0:16:52] Voice 9: we shepherded that through Association of Vancouver Island Communities.

[0:16:55] Voice 9: It was passed.

[0:16:56] Voice 9: was basically the request is to ask the federal government to stop trying to divest see you know

[0:17:02] Voice 9: cease efforts to divest our false bay work on one hand they have because it's a remote port there's

[0:17:10] Voice 9: only a dozen or two less than two dozen in canada defined as remote that's a special classification

[0:17:15] Voice 9: for islands or locations that don't have a route the work is the primary so sweetie bay doesn't

[0:17:20] Voice 9: count but false bay does because that's our primary access if we had a bridge then it would

[0:17:24] Voice 9: so there's only a couple dozen or less than a couple dozen of these so on one hand they say

[0:17:30] Voice 9: they will continue maintenance they won't they can't take it away they can't dismantle it

[0:17:34] Voice 9: but they can divest it another part of their documents they got all these documents says

[0:17:38] Voice 9: those reports those ports or wharfs aren't treated any different than any other port

[0:17:42] Voice 9: if someone wanted to divest so they wouldn't be able to dismantle it but they would hand over a

[0:17:45] Voice 9: pile of cash to an entity that would take it on and then eventually lose money because that's what

[0:17:50] Voice 9: will happen it doesn't matter how much money they give and i think carl's agree it doesn't matter

[0:17:53] Voice 9: how much money they give within reason you're going to lose money it costs a lot of money so

[0:17:57] Voice 9: we just want them to stop and that got passed unanimously at abicc uh ubcm normally abicc goes

[0:18:04] Voice 9: to union bc municipalities they more or less said well that's not really our jurisdiction because

[0:18:08] Voice 9: that's not all of bc not just coastal it's more federal so we don't normally get most people in

[0:18:15] Voice 9: the most local politicians can vote a federation of canadian municipalities because that's expensive

[0:18:19] Voice 9: to go, and it's not as relevant, but we did find a way.

[0:18:22] Voice 9: The Anas Trust, who jointly sponsored it going to ABI-CC,

[0:18:25] Voice 9: couldn't jointly sponsor going to FCM because Anas Trust isn't a member of FCM.

[0:18:30] Voice 9: QRD is.

[0:18:31] Voice 9: So I talked with the QRD policy people and our what they call electoral area

[0:18:35] Voice 9: representatives, so Union of BC Municipality elects another rural director.

[0:18:41] Voice 9: This one's from Northern BC somewhere, and she basically is the electoral area rep.

[0:18:47] Voice 9: So I talked with her.

[0:18:48] Voice 9: she's on one of the committees for fcm i talked to the policy person they helped us figure out

[0:18:52] Voice 9: how to do this trustee peterson looked into the format and we adjusted things then the regional

[0:18:57] Voice 9: district uh passed it it's an under the deadline in fact we'll finalize it uh this week i think

[0:19:02] Voice 9: and then it gets in then that'll go to the fcm and they will review it if that happens two things

[0:19:08] Voice 9: will happen one is it'll become if it gets passed fcm would it would become their policy to advocate

[0:19:13] Voice 9: for this and it's not just about our work it's about all remote ports that's the way to get the

[0:19:17] Voice 9: buy-in from you know merit times and so on um and then the other thing that could happen that could

[0:19:23] Voice 9: happen is our mp gordon johns we've been communicating with and he will advocate on

[0:19:27] Voice 9: our behalf and the more the further it goes on this process the more strength he has to meet

[0:19:31] Voice 9: with the minister and say hey stop it it's not that much money we're talking you know they've

[0:19:35] Voice 9: already divested 400 and something of wharfs this is really just saying these last 15 just suck it

[0:19:41] Voice 9: up keep them shouldn't use no language just accept that the success of the program and keep those

[0:19:46] Voice 9: ones on the federal payroll and don't download it onto communities that can't afford it i estimate

[0:19:51] Voice 9: it based on we did the original version draft with the trustee from gambier island who's also

[0:19:56] Voice 9: regional director based on their their background information it would cost at least four hundred

[0:20:01] Voice 9: thousand dollars a year our taxes if we were to take it as regional district service which is

[0:20:05] Voice 9: the otherwise the default anyways i'll leave that part there i see i don't know if i can take

[0:20:11] Voice 9: 4 000

[0:20:11] Voice 5: just in taxes 400

[0:20:13] Voice 9: 000 in taxes wow per

[0:20:15] Voice 9: year because you need to asset management regional

[0:20:18] Voice 9: districts do which is to say 200 000 on average to maintain it on average because you go years

[0:20:23] Voice 9: without doing it and all of a sudden you spend a million replacing pylons is like 20 30 000 per

[0:20:28] Voice 9: pylon and then the replacement you have to say if it's got a 40 50 year life you divide the

[0:20:33] Voice 9: replacement cost of x millions by 40 years that's how much you save per year that's what they did

[0:20:38] Voice 9: for the Gambier Island dock wharf they basically did a report to say what would it cost us that

[0:20:43] Voice 9: and that's a lot you know those who know the area is more protected than ours so that's on the low

[0:20:48] Voice 9: end the regional district did take the dock the wharf on Savory Island way back at the beginning

[0:20:53] Voice 9: because they asked the regional district hey you want it we'll give you a pile of cash regional

[0:20:56] Voice 9: district took Savory Island wharf which sticks out like a sore thumb into the straight took a bunch

[0:21:00] Voice 9: of money used it up in a couple years now Savory Island which has more properties than the ski but

[0:21:05] Voice 9: but fewer full-time residents, but they're wealthier.

[0:21:09] Voice 9: Theirs is something like 200, 300,000.

[0:21:11] Voice 9: It's in that ballpark, 300, 400,000.

[0:21:12] Voice 9: I can't remember exactly, but it's in, I've reported it before.

[0:21:14] Voice 9: It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year

[0:21:16] Voice 9: Savory Island pays for, not the rest of the regional district,

[0:21:18] Voice 9: just Savory.

[0:21:19] Voice 9: So that's been my position all along is when they asked us,

[0:21:22] Voice 9: they sent us like a day meeting, the federal government said,

[0:21:25] Voice 9: hey, why don't you take it on?

[0:21:25] Voice 9: We'll give you a pile of cash.

[0:21:26] Voice 9: We didn't even want to ask.

[0:21:27] Voice 9: They said, no, no, they keep it.

[0:21:30] Voice 9: I'd rather have 40 million people pay than 500.

[0:21:33] Voice 9: I don't know. Should I take questions or should I wait?

[0:21:37] Voice 12: Yeah,

[0:21:39] Voice 5: if you've got a question specific for the report.

[0:21:41] Voice 12: At the UBCM, one thing that needs to be brought to them

[0:21:46] Voice 12: is that the people from the interior use the coat.

[0:21:50] Voice 12: They come up to the coat in droves.

[0:21:53] Voice 12: And so the argument that they don't have a say in it

[0:21:57] Voice 12: is somewhat specious.

[0:21:59] Voice 9: because because

[0:22:00] Voice 12: everybody wants to come down to the coast that's all i want

[0:22:05] Voice 9: no i agree completely

[0:22:06] Voice 9: in fact the original version of it it was as the island's trust added on ubcm and it was avicc which

[0:22:12] Voice 9: is our association haidagwai down to victoria and then that's a subset subset of ubcm which is the

[0:22:18] Voice 9: whole province and then fcm is the big one uh it got sent to ubcm but it was they have the

[0:22:23] Voice 9: the resolutions committee and the resolutions committee said no we'll put it on the so it's

[0:22:28] Voice 9: going to be on their agenda as for information when the meeting happens in september but they're

[0:22:34] Voice 9: not going to bring it to the floor for voting so

[0:22:36] Voice 7: it's

[0:22:37] Voice 9: neither here nor there like sort of sort of

[0:22:38] Voice 9: they're saying it's consistent with existing policy which i totally disagree with because

[0:22:42] Voice 9: they've referred some other resolution so you're right i don't disagree it's just that what i'm

[0:22:46] Voice 9: trying to point out is you can only do so the resolutions committee says that you can't appeal

[0:22:50] Voice 9: and it's actually FCM like it's because it's federal FCM if it was just UBCM I would fight it

[0:22:57] Voice 9: if it was because it's going to FCM we'll shepherd it through there normally it would go in there

[0:23:02] Voice 9: autumn they have an autumn convention just

[0:23:05] Voice 16: add super briefly I was in in preparation for ABICC

[0:23:09] Voice 16: I got in touch with representatives for the other communities in BC that have remote ports that are

[0:23:16] Voice 16: on the list and we got some good support there and specifically straff conan has already um

[0:23:22] Voice 16: sent a letter to fcm in support of the resolution so there are other communities in bc

[0:23:29] Voice 16: um that are in the same boat that are totally on the same page whether they're actually going to

[0:23:34] Voice 16: send delegation i don't know it's always a financial thing but and

[0:23:38] Voice 9: thanks to trustee

[0:23:39] Voice 9: peterson for we work really well together and with kate louise stanford from gambier we developed

[0:23:44] Voice 9: develop this and figuring out the connections and other representatives on around there's been

[0:23:50] Voice 9: support from along the local government reps all i've

[0:23:52] Voice 9: seen is support saying hey yeah explain it

[0:23:54] Voice 9: to them they go oh that's what our report is well yeah so it's so we'll see where it goes to and i

[0:23:59] Voice 9: think because there's some in quebec and in maritime provinces that at fcm they'll say hey

[0:24:05] Voice 9: yeah that's too right imagine some little place in newfoundland with 30 people 100 they've taken

[0:24:08] Voice 9: away some of those say too small but if you're so there's a certain size limit but some small

[0:24:13] Voice 9: communities in newfoundland that will say hey back off we can't afford this um okay so i won't go on

[0:24:19] Voice 9: on that one anymore the wildfire preparedness so this is really just to say you know we we had a

[0:24:23] Voice 9: fire here on the island a couple a week and a half ago two weeks ago uh and it didn't become

[0:24:29] Voice 9: a wildfire it was put out by our fire department it could have become a wildfire posed a risk so

[0:24:34] Voice 9: it caused people to really reflect on where we're at with wildfire preparedness and some questions

[0:24:37] Voice 9: were raised about what the regional district is doing so just so everyone knows and i've reported

[0:24:42] Voice 9: on this in my annual or my monthly notice so the regional district has a fire smart program we've

[0:24:49] Voice 9: supported it every year some funds from the province matching funds we put in some funds

[0:24:52] Voice 9: to hire fire smart coordinator who then oversees some people on the ground here there's three

[0:24:58] Voice 9: people people can get fire smart assessments for free ask them they'll come they'll do an

[0:25:03] Voice 9: assessment they'll give you a list and then if you if you meet certain if you do some of the things

[0:25:07] Voice 9: on the list you can even get a rebate of 500 or something like that but really it's to help you

[0:25:11] Voice 9: you understand risks around your house and if you want to do something the number one thing

[0:25:14] Voice 9: to mitigate wildfire risk for your house is around your house it's not the fire that might spread

[0:25:19] Voice 9: from the south end to your house it's around it's the 100 meters from your house second thing is

[0:25:23] Voice 9: we've got a community evacuation guide so the province the regional district mailed it out

[0:25:28] Voice 9: everyone almost nobody remembers except me because i'm the regional director i noticed people say i

[0:25:32] Voice 9: don't remember getting that it's two or three years ago why because if it comes out in february

[0:25:36] Voice 9: people don't pay attention oh well raining it's existing it's online i'm going to ask if it can

[0:25:41] Voice 9: be mailed out again because now people are paying attention it would be good for people to go oh yeah

[0:25:45] Voice 9: it doesn't say much beyond what you might think is obvious you got two major evacuation points

[0:25:50] Voice 9: that way and that way guess what the two dogs so um but it does have some information it's

[0:25:55] Voice 9: available on the regional district site um look at it i'll see if it can get put out again and

[0:26:00] Voice 9: And the third thing, we commissioned a community wildfire resiliency plan review.

[0:26:06] Voice 9: So we already had a community wildfire resiliency plan.

[0:26:08] Voice 9: We got a grant, I think.

[0:26:09] Voice 9: We hired some consultants to do this resiliency plan.

[0:26:13] Voice 9: It's a nice document.

[0:26:13] Voice 9: I reported on it.

[0:26:14] Voice 9: It'll be commented on it because, again, as long as the fire risk is low, no one cares.

[0:26:19] Voice 9: And then people say, what's going on?

[0:26:20] Voice 9: Well, that's what's going on.

[0:26:20] Voice 9: Go read it.

[0:26:21] Voice 9: The regional district has been preparing for years.

[0:26:23] Voice 9: We know the risk is there.

[0:26:25] Voice 9: This fire in the south end raised the concern of what might happen.

[0:26:29] Voice 9: And I just want to tell people, you know, that wildfire resiliency plan has a lot of recommendations and suggestions and mostly for what the regional district can do.

[0:26:39] Voice 9: But it includes a wildfire risk assessment, a wildfire threat assessment.

[0:26:43] Voice 9: And that's done by modeling, computer modeling of wildfires spread across everywhere in the regional district to identify the areas that have relatively higher or lower risk of burning.

[0:26:54] Voice 9: and just so you know and I'm going to say some things and I say this to people and they always

[0:26:58] Voice 9: try to dispute me and I welcome you to try to dispute me our risk is low to moderate on the

[0:27:05] Voice 9: scheme and what that means is because people get worried about the fire that might spread and spread

[0:27:09] Voice 9: and burn the whole island that is an exceedingly low likelihood event and the reason why it's

[0:27:14] Voice 9: important to understand is because when you're trying to prepare wildfire threat reduction

[0:27:20] Voice 9: you need to focus on that worst case it's kind of like focusing on the richter 12 earthquake it can

[0:27:27] Voice 9: happen for that 100 meter focus on the risk that's more likely the high end of bad not the

[0:27:33] Voice 9: really really tail because that's where you take effect the fire that might be 100 hectares

[0:27:38] Voice 9: 500 hectares around 7 000 hectares 7 500 that it's not that it couldn't happen i would never

[0:27:45] Voice 9: say it couldn't happen so just to be clear so no one misunderstands me it's not that a big fire

[0:27:49] Voice 9: couldn't possibly burn the whole island down it's that that is such a low likelihood outcome

[0:27:55] Voice 9: preparing for that is basically leads to a kind of panic attack of how do we jump off this island

[0:28:01] Voice 9: get in our tags and paddle away as opposed to rational discussion about how we reduce risk

[0:28:06] Voice 9: and that's what this report has and it's not just me saying that this this they have a map of that

[0:28:11] Voice 9: they show it most of luskete's identified as low the province also bc wildfire service puts out

[0:28:16] Voice 9: what they call a provincial strategic threat analysis and that has a bunch of information

[0:28:20] Voice 9: wildland urban interface which is areas around structures most of luskete is in the wildland

[0:28:25] Voice 9: urban interface the rest of the regional district is just along the shore texada it's around gillies

[0:28:30] Voice 9: bay cook bay batonanda but luskete because we're all over the place those are the areas you want

[0:28:35] Voice 9: to focus your attention not the back country so much and they they have a rating a threat rating

[0:28:40] Voice 9: from low medium low moderate high and extreme when you look at it's only on frown land unfortunately

[0:28:46] Voice 9: Unfortunately, but all the crown land on Mesquite is rated as low or moderate by the province.

[0:28:52] Voice 9: And third point, if you still say, yeah, but what about, okay, the regional district had a fire, which was important.

[0:28:59] Voice 9: Our fire department, because I was on the north side, they were fighting it for a week.

[0:29:03] Voice 9: Fire up by Oakover Inlet.

[0:29:05] Voice 9: It burned for a week.

[0:29:06] Voice 9: Very scary.

[0:29:07] Voice 9: It was frightening because it was near structures, near houses, right by Oakover, right near one of the roads, burning both sides of the roads, threatening houses.

[0:29:15] Voice 9: I don't think any houses burned down and burned for a week fighting the fire 1.7 hectares.

[0:29:20] Voice 9: I was right yesterday this fire I think it's up by Boston Bar overnight it got to be 600 hectares so

[0:29:25] Voice 9: we're talking

[0:29:25] Voice 9: different ecosystems. The threat here is smoke you know you're way more likely to

[0:29:30] Voice 9: have problems from smoke than be burning. So in other words the more will come on this I don't

[0:29:35] Voice 9: want to go on this because this is all stuff that exists but just because it's foremost in our minds

[0:29:39] Voice 9: I think we as a community need to talk more about this. I would like to talk more about this

[0:29:43] Voice 9: community plan so people can understand what it means and have vigorous debates about about what

[0:29:49] Voice 9: the actual risk on Luskete is and what the actual hazard is on Luskete and I'm happy to talk about

[0:29:53] Voice 9: that I would caution that's what I do for a living so I'm not just also speaking I'm doing the same

[0:29:58] Voice 9: kind of mapping

[0:30:00] Voice 9: northern BC but on a broader scale two million hectares so around Smithers so that's part of

[0:30:05] Voice 9: what I do for a living so I'm happy to talk about there it's different bad fires in 2018 40,000

[0:30:11] Voice 9: hectares in 30 days we had a fire last year on Vancouver on 30 days I burned 2,000 hectares

[0:30:17] Voice 9: when the year a couple years before that 200 hectares up on Cameron so I think focusing on

[0:30:23] Voice 9: the fire risk that we have helps us focus our attention on what we need to do and if we can

[0:30:27] Voice 9: agree on as a community to talk as a community we can actually come up with strategies to reduce our

[0:30:32] Voice 9: risk our threat to fire so that we can actually be more resilient and i'll leave it there thank you

[0:30:38] Voice 5: that's a great information director and i really appreciate you bringing that forward so

[0:30:43] Voice 5: very important thanks marty

[0:30:49] Voice 8: coffee all

[0:30:50] Voice 7: right

[0:30:51] Voice 5: um well we'll continue with our agenda and we've got our minutes

[0:30:59] Voice 5: minutes to review and adopt so 6.1 local trust committee minutes from february 9th

[0:31:05] Voice 19: section 5 that will come back oh

[0:31:08] Voice 5: what skip in the town hall was that

[0:31:12] Voice 5: I

[0:31:13] Voice 19: did

[0:31:14] Voice 5: not mean to do that okay apologies we're back in section thanks I mean thank you

[0:31:20] Voice 5: where is the coffee section five we're

[0:31:24] Voice 8: at town hall so

[0:31:26] Voice 5: this is your opportunity to speak and

[0:31:28] Voice 5: to address us we want to hear your questions and comments and this will help inform us as we make

[0:31:34] Voice 5: decisions later in the agenda so your questions and comments are valued and help us to make good

[0:31:40] Voice 5: decisions. So a couple of sidelines. We ask that you speak respectfully. Oh, I'm being asked to

[0:31:46] Voice 5: change the camera view. We ask that you speak respectfully. We do not entertain any comments

[0:31:53] Voice 5: that are racist or stereotypes or comments that target Indigenous peoples or any group in our

[0:32:00] Voice 5: community. We will acknowledge concerns without causing harm. So you're absolutely entitled to

[0:32:06] Voice 5: ask questions and express uncertainty and we ask that you do that with the um just just maintaining

[0:32:16] Voice 5: a respectful tone towards everyone and we'll uphold cultural safety we recognize that public

[0:32:22] Voice 5: processes have not always felt safe or welcoming for indigenous peoples and we are committed to

[0:32:28] Voice 5: doing better so that includes giving void space to indigenous voices being mindful of how language

[0:32:33] Voice 5: affects people and addressing harmful comments if they arise. So we will also

[0:32:39] Voice 5: keep this conversation constructive. Your experience is valuable and your lived

[0:32:44] Voice 5: experience and knowledge and all voices have that same value and deserve to be

[0:32:51] Voice 5: heard. So we're gonna limit folks to three minutes and we ask that you speak

[0:32:57] Voice 5: in order of items on today's agenda, items within the local trust committee's

[0:33:03] Voice 5: jurisdiction and items within islands trust jurisdiction so with that i'll open the town

[0:33:08] Voice 5: call hall town hall and call for speakers not

[0:33:16] Voice 8: one hello

[0:33:19] Voice 5: okay please state your name for the record

[0:33:22] Voice 5: yeah

[0:33:22] Voice 14: i'm dave olson do you think uh i can be recorded well enough from here or should i come

[0:33:27] Voice 14: no

[0:33:27] Voice 5: i think we can hear you just fine okay

[0:33:29] Voice 14: great um i just want to reflect back at the beginning

[0:33:33] Voice 14: of your term. I think it was probably the second meeting. The staff wanted to standardize all the

[0:33:41] Voice 14: meeting procedure bylaws. And so when there was community pushback about limiting town halls,

[0:33:48] Voice 14: I recall Trustee Peterson saying, the chair has been very lenient and I see no reason why that

[0:33:55] Voice 14: would change so last two months ago your last meeting i was in the middle of asking a series

[0:34:03] Voice 14: of questions all about meetings with the news band and trustee peterson told me very clearly

[0:34:11] Voice 14: to email my questions so i have so i've there's two questions that i've emailed trustee peterson

[0:34:19] Voice 14: that still haven't been answered despite seven attempts and then i emailed the planner as well

[0:34:25] Voice 14: on a week ago and still no answer. So my first question is, how do I get answers to the questions

[0:34:35] Voice 14: that I have? Because I actually have quite a few.

[0:34:42] Voice 5: Yeah, your first point of contact is the trustee.

[0:34:45] Voice 5: If they don't have answers, they will ask staff. If it is a broad constitutional question that

[0:34:53] Voice 5: requires a legal opinion you will probably get an answer that you know we can't provide you

[0:34:59] Voice 5: with the information you're looking for at this time so it depends on the nature of the question

[0:35:03] Voice 16: so the question is i don't have something oh which is that you should check your email box

[0:35:09] Voice 16: because i i didn't get back to you in time for your publication but i have responded to your

[0:35:14] Voice 16: emails oh great sometimes things end up in spam i know it happens to me all the time

[0:35:20] Voice 16: um

[0:35:21] Voice 14: so there are three there are three trustees with us this time last meeting there was four

[0:35:27] Voice 14: your chair was here and that's why i was asking the questions but since i haven't been able to

[0:35:34] Voice 14: get answers by email please could each of you answer the question about whether you attended

[0:35:41] Voice 14: attended the meeting with the NENU's band on December 5th, 2022, February 15th, 2023,

[0:35:52] Voice 14: April 19th, 2024, July 25th, 2024, and May 19th, 2026.

[0:36:01] Voice 5: Again, that's probably more appropriate

[0:36:04] Voice 5: for email so folks can check their calendars and get back to you. I will note that there has been

[0:36:11] Voice 5: a working group struck at the direction of trust council and that included uh all the members of

[0:36:17] Voice 5: the local trust committee with um whoever was going to speak with uh san jose first nation

[0:36:26] Voice 5: and their staff and that working group met probably three or four times those are the dates

[0:36:32] Voice 14: that i just read out so were trustees present at those meetings i

[0:36:37] Voice 5: can speak for myself i was

[0:36:39] Voice 5: present at most of them

[0:36:39] Voice 14: all of them i am

[0:36:43] Voice 5: not going to check my calendar in live time you can email me

[0:36:46] Voice 5: but i'm pretty sure i was at three to four meetings so

[0:36:50] Voice 14: you're gonna answer my email i

[0:36:52] Voice 5: have not received an email from you

[0:36:54] Voice 14: no but if i email you you will answer thank

[0:36:56] Voice 14: you very much

[0:36:58] Voice 14: um may i ask the other trustees your

[0:37:01] Voice 5: three minutes is up so i'll entertain other questions

[0:37:04] Voice 5: uh or comments and we can come back to you great thank you

[0:37:08] Voice 6: yes i've got three minutes i'd like the

[0:37:11] Voice 6: to respond to that question how much me how many meetings within the newsstand you've been to

[0:37:18] Voice 6: looking up off

[0:37:23] Voice 4: the top of my head without looking at my calendar i

[0:37:26] Voice 6: don't know i

[0:37:26] Voice 4: definitely remember

[0:37:28] Voice 4: two but there could have been more but at least two possibly more and i said i'd have to check it

[0:37:34] Voice 4: there's a lot of meetings in this job so yeah

[0:37:37] Voice 6: that's a specific

[0:37:39] Voice 4: yeah they were no they were

[0:37:40] Voice 4: on zoom thank

[0:37:42] Voice 6: you yeah

[0:37:44] Voice 16: i i know that some of the days were canceled i i did when dave emailed me i

[0:37:50] Voice 16: went through my calendar quite carefully um but what i couldn't tell from my calendar as i know

[0:37:56] Voice 16: there was some cancellations i know there's at least one where we tried to have a meeting but

[0:38:01] Voice 16: but there was only one person there and we put it off.

[0:38:05] Voice 16: So I don't remember which days or which,

[0:38:07] Voice 16: but I think I attended all of the ones that actually happened,

[0:38:12] Voice 16: but I just don't like my calendar doesn't, you know,

[0:38:16] Voice 16: I haven't gone back and go, you know,

[0:38:18] Voice 16: that one was canceled or that one didn't quite fly.

[0:38:20] Voice 16: So

[0:38:20] Voice 7: best

[0:38:21] Voice 16: of my ability,

[0:38:22] Voice 16: I'm pretty sure I attended all the ones that actually did happen.

[0:38:35] Voice 8: anyone else did

[0:38:44] Voice 5: everyone get a receive a copy of the addendum because there might have been

[0:38:50] Voice 5: questions about that that was added it was

[0:38:54] Voice 16: yeah unfortunately i ran out of toter before i could

[0:38:56] Voice 16: print any i did but

[0:38:59] Voice 5: you sent it out i

[0:38:59] Voice 16: sent it out on the e-list and on the hotwire that's the best

[0:39:03] Voice 16: like to do we didn't get it till friday any

[0:39:13] Voice 6: more questions yeah but

[0:39:16] Voice 9: it's about the ocp thing uh so

[0:39:19] Voice 9: if i when i read it i i guess i just want to just clarify some of the language that was used by the

[0:39:25] Voice 9: staff recommendation so the effect my understanding is that the effect of this would be

[0:39:29] Voice 9: that this ltc would basically uh defer this movement action on the ocp until next term

[0:39:38] Voice 9: but the language was you know something about the camera the exact wording of it but it just seemed

[0:39:43] Voice 9: like i just want to clarify that that's what it means so that this ltc would go to basically say

[0:39:47] Voice 9: there's no time to finish this uh this term and that it would be picked up i think it was at the

[0:39:53] Voice 9: option of or something like that so with the so maybe like my question would be is that correct is

[0:39:58] Voice 9: would it mean that the next ski local trust committee would then have a motion brought to

[0:40:04] Voice 9: them on one of their early agendas to pick that up as a major project again they've achieved whether

[0:40:10] Voice 9: that would be a major partner i

[0:40:11] Voice 5: think the recommendation which we'll discuss at that point

[0:40:15] Voice 5: um with staff who put together the report is to place the ocp project on the future projects list

[0:40:24] Voice 5: the upcoming ltc to reconsider as part of their work program um and so the lit the there is the

[0:40:31] Voice 5: the rationale for this that that is primarily due to resourcing that project hasn't started.

[0:40:39] Voice 5: But the timing of the elections and this term ending does it make sense to start a new major project essentially right to see outgoing trustees is is ending so.

[0:40:53] Voice 5: So as you know, there's a lot of

[0:40:55] Voice 7: like,

[0:40:57] Voice 5: anyway, so we'll get to that in the discussion, but

[0:40:59] Voice 5: it is to put it on the future projects list and then reconsider when the new Trump's coming

[0:41:03] Voice 5: in.

[0:41:04] Voice 5: I hope that answers your question.

[0:41:07] Voice 10: Okay.

[0:41:09] Voice 5: Another question.

[0:41:11] Voice 5: Yeah,

[0:41:11] Voice 14: I just, I've asked this by email as well.

[0:41:14] Voice 14: Um, is this trust committee willing to consult with this community before you sign the new

[0:41:21] Voice 14: fans protocol?

[0:41:23] Voice 14: I

[0:41:23] Voice 5: think as we responded before, the local trust committee does not sign protocol agreements

[0:41:29] Voice 5: that is undertaken as a government to government agreement that is between Islands Trust Council

[0:41:37] Voice 5: and First Nation.

[0:41:39] Voice 14: So I understand that three of the four trustees that are on the working group are sitting

[0:41:46] Voice 14: in front of me and Chair Patrick is the fourth.

[0:41:49] Voice 14: And so, yes, you can say technically that it's a protocol signed with Trust Council.

[0:41:57] Voice 14: Obviously, three quarters of that working group are the Leskete Local Trust Committee.

[0:42:04] Voice 5: The working

[0:42:05] Voice 14: group has no...

[0:42:06] Voice 14: Can I finish my question?

[0:42:08] Voice 5: Well, you're making an assertion that I want to just confirm what you're saying before you move on.

[0:42:14] Voice 5: So a working group meets to clarify issues and have discussion.

[0:42:19] Voice 5: there is no decisions made by a working group vote would have to be taken by

[0:42:26] Voice 5: Trust Council which is 26 trustees to sign any protocol agreements or

[0:42:31] Voice 5: memorandums of understanding so the working group would not be doing that

[0:42:36] Voice 5: work

[0:42:36] Voice 14: okay and is this local trust committee willing to consult with this

[0:42:44] Voice 14: community before any protocols involving this community are signed I

[0:42:54] Voice 16: can speak to

[0:42:55] Voice 16: that and I know that I sent you the the minutes and the meeting agenda for March

[0:43:06] Voice 16: 2023 when it did come to this committee and it came to the committee as an

[0:43:15] Voice 16: opportunity to provide comments for trust council and so i know that it seems a little strange but

[0:43:23] Voice 16: trust council is the one that has the protocols that signs or authorizes protocols this local

[0:43:31] Voice 16: trust committee was only ever asked to provide comments pretty sure based on the minutes some

[0:43:36] Voice 16: of the questions you were at that meeting i've provided that all of you to you but there is no

[0:43:43] Voice 16: mechanism by which the local trust committee does that does what

[0:43:49] Voice 14: what you're asking for

[0:43:51] Voice 14: so there's no mechanism for this local trust committee to have a public meeting and ask the

[0:43:57] Voice 14: community about a protocol with the first nation well

[0:44:01] Voice 16: here's the thing it's like asking the

[0:44:04] Voice 16: department of highways uh to look at what the ferry is doing it's not in our jurisdiction

[0:44:11] Voice 16: it's in trust council's jurisdiction it's not a local trust committee matter so you're not

[0:44:17] Voice 14: representing our community that's not accurate

[0:44:21] Voice 14: but

[0:44:22] Voice 16: i'm not going to get into a big argument

[0:44:23] Voice 16: it's very

[0:44:24] Voice 16: it's very simple it's very straightforward the local trust committee

[0:44:29] Voice 16: does not administer the protocol doesn't have the ability to approve or not approve

[0:44:35] Voice 16: we had an opportunity to provide comment that's the extent of it and

[0:44:40] Voice 5: and just to clarify a protocol

[0:44:42] Voice 5: agreement is about how two governments work together and the government is islands trust

[0:44:47] Voice 5: and a first nation government and it's about trust and it's about communication it's about how do we

[0:44:52] Voice 5: discuss items of mutual interest which would then be brought back to the local trust committee to

[0:44:57] Voice 5: go through all the usual process that we go through it does not set terms for local trust

[0:45:04] Voice 5: committee work it sets terms for engagement together on mutual work so that's why it's

[0:45:10] Voice 5: government to government and that is held by islands trust as a government with the nation

[0:45:14] Voice 5: it is not at the local trust committee level taking your point that of course it affects the

[0:45:19] Voice 5: community that would all come back to the community it's just a protocol agreement structures how

[0:45:24] Voice 5: how you communicate how you engage can

[0:45:28] Voice 14: i just add another point of information which is very

[0:45:32] Voice 14: important. The protocol that Trustee Peterson mentioned was on a meeting

[0:45:39] Voice 14: agenda. It was actually in another addendum and it happened just like the

[0:45:44] Voice 14: addendum for this meeting. It came out Friday before the Monday. So most people

[0:45:51] Voice 14: didn't get a chance to see it. Most people had no idea what was included in

[0:45:55] Voice 14: and i'm included in those most people and so you you dealt with it on your in your during your

[0:46:04] Voice 14: meeting and nobody had any information about it we had no idea what this was about again so

[0:46:09] Voice 14: can i just finish my point please well

[0:46:13] Voice 5: again working groups are not to ratify protocol

[0:46:15] Voice 5: agreements that would go back to trust council and all of the public in the trust area is going

[0:46:20] Voice 5: to see that on a public agenda which is published so i'm not sure how you think a decision or a

[0:46:27] Voice 5: member of the public on the skinny would not be informed it's when it comes to trust council's

[0:46:33] Voice 5: agenda we

[0:46:36] Voice 14: so there's no copies of the agenda addendum for this meeting so trustee peterson

[0:46:44] Voice 14: put out a link you didn't put out it's

[0:46:47] Voice 5: on the website it's on the website effective friday

[0:46:50] Voice 5: the addendum is on the website so

[0:46:53] Voice 14: you're expecting members of the public who are not paid

[0:46:55] Voice 14: to do this to have the time and the ability to go to a website and look at an addendum

[0:47:03] Voice 14: same situation in march of 2023 okay which

[0:47:08] Voice 14: is why i'm asking you to consult the community

[0:47:11] Voice 14: because the community has little

[0:47:13] Voice 14: information about this and you're keep consistently breaking

[0:47:17] Voice 14: Okay, Mr. Olson,

[0:47:19] Voice 14: you're conflating.

[0:47:20] Voice 14: You're consistently breaking your decorum by interrupting me.

[0:47:23] Voice 5: You are conflating two different processes,

[0:47:26] Voice 5: and I'm going to turn to staff who are online,

[0:47:29] Voice 5: and they may have some more information.

[0:47:31] Voice 5: Thank you.

[0:47:32] Voice 5: RPM, Deborah.

[0:47:36] Voice 17: Good morning, Chair.

[0:47:37] Voice 17: Good morning, Trustees.

[0:47:38] Voice 17: May I suggest if there's any information that the Chair and the LTC would like

[0:47:44] Voice 17: to follow up on, perhaps that's a good opportunity to receive this public

[0:47:49] Voice 17: comment for information and um and if you'd like to direct staff to to look into anything further

[0:47:56] Voice 17: okay

[0:47:59] Voice 5: so what is the point that you would like to get clarity on that we can ask stuff it's a

[0:48:07] Voice 14: the question that i've emailed seven times will this local trust committee consult this community

[0:48:14] Voice 14: community about the protocol that has been written with the SINAS and has not been signed?

[0:48:23] Voice 14: And will you consult with us before it is signed? You've had three years.

[0:48:30] Voice 5: I think we've responded to this in a number of ways, which I don't think it's translating. So

[0:48:37] Voice 5: it's probably best we just communicate by email and you can get absolute clarity on the kind of

[0:48:42] Voice 5: consultation that happens with a protocol agreement would that be sufficient i

[0:48:48] Voice 14: can't

[0:48:49] Voice 14: see any other answer coming from committee today so i guess it is thank you is

[0:48:56] Voice 6: it not reasonable

[0:48:59] Voice 6: for us to expect um to be made aware of what your interpretations and recommendations are to trust

[0:49:09] Voice 6: council before you give the information to trust council we as a community should have the right

[0:49:19] Voice 6: to know what your recommendations are that's council because it very much influences

[0:49:28] Voice 6: what happens to our community and if trust council gets this information and makes their decision

[0:49:36] Voice 6: on what you recommend when we have not been made aware of what you are recommending then that does

[0:49:45] Voice 6: not seem to be respectful of our community and the input that we want to put into the recommendation

[0:49:56] Voice 6: to trust council okay so i'm hearing the same question that dave is asking we want to be

[0:50:03] Voice 6: consulted before you go with your recommendations to

[0:50:07] Voice 5: trust council okay

[0:50:08] Voice 5: so i'm hearing there's

[0:50:09] Voice 5: more clarity needed on the process as what kind of input from community can be uh raised i did see

[0:50:19] Voice 5: joe elliott you had your hand up um is there anything you would like to add or suggest to

[0:50:26] Voice 5: help us with this conversation yes

[0:50:30] Voice 1: thank you chair toby elliott um i'm just curious in regards to um

[0:50:33] Voice 1: the process and look for clarity.

[0:50:35] Voice 1: Maybe there's an appropriate time to maybe direct staff to look at the

[0:50:39] Voice 1: parameters in regards to, I guess,

[0:50:42] Voice 1: the responsibility if there's a responsibility to consult with LISCIDI in

[0:50:47] Voice 1: regards to the NALIS agreement, if there's an agreement,

[0:50:50] Voice 1: there may not even be agreement at this point.

[0:50:53] Voice 1: But what I'm hearing is that there's the consultation process in regards to

[0:50:58] Voice 1: agreements, the First Nations that we make with nations that are within the

[0:51:02] Voice 1: well within the constitutional and the parameters of what directions by the province

[0:51:06] Voice 1: and i don't think any any of the work that the scopes are outside of the i guess this

[0:51:13] Voice 1: constitutional parameters and if there's a responsibility to report back to um

[0:51:19] Voice 1: luski the islanders um so there's maybe there's some work in regards to

[0:51:22] Voice 1: to clarify that process um and that request

[0:51:27] Voice 5: yeah thank you joe um i appreciate that advice

[0:51:32] Voice 5: Because I think that's, you know, that's what we're hearing is a lack of clarity about which processes involve a local trust committee, which are more trust council's direction, and then at what point is a local community able to give input or inform the process.

[0:51:53] Voice 5: So perhaps coming out of this, we could think of a resolution to requesting staff provide some information, what it would be for early in the next term, I guess, the November meeting.

[0:52:07] Voice 5: Could you help us maybe with a wording for a potential resolution to help us with that discussion?

[0:52:15] Voice 5: And we can come back to this maybe in business arising for minutes.

[0:52:25] Voice 5: Jo, would you be willing to help with the resolution to that effect of what we could ask staff to come back with?

[0:52:31] Voice 1: Sure, yeah.

[0:52:32] Voice 5: I have a

[0:52:38] Voice 6: question about all these meetings with the First Nations over in the news.

[0:52:43] Voice 6: How big of a group are you meeting with?

[0:52:45] Voice 6: Just other councillors or is the community involved over there?

[0:52:49] Voice 6: I just sort of feel like we're being smooth.

[0:52:53] Voice 5: So the working group is between elected officials, was supported by staff.

[0:52:58] Voice 5: and so there would only be one or two council members and their staff and two

[0:53:07] Voice 5: or three trustees whoever's on the working group and some staff and it's

[0:53:12] Voice 5: again just to talk about processes government to government and then we

[0:53:16] Voice 5: bring that back to community and inform you and clearly there's more information

[0:53:25] Voice 6: Yeah, this is all this is this is a child in trust. It is worldwide politicians are taking advantage of everybody passing laws without people knowing what's going on.

[0:53:38] Voice 6: It's just, we're, and that's the frustration that everyone's feeling it's, and you're getting to hear it.

[0:53:44] Voice 6: yeah i hear you we're feeling it everywhere i hear you justin peterson yeah

[0:53:50] Voice 16: i just want to

[0:53:51] Voice 16: encourage anyone that's um interested or concerned to go ahead and read the agreement if you don't

[0:53:59] Voice 16: have a copy i can send you a copy uh really important part it's the effect of the agreement

[0:54:06] Voice 16: section 36 to 39 really delves into what does it actually mean it's not binding on either party it

[0:54:14] Voice 16: doesn't affect the rights or exercise of powers duties or obligations etc etc so i understand

[0:54:22] Voice 16: that people maybe have feelings one way or the other but before you get too deeply into that

[0:54:29] Voice 16: i just encourage you to go and read it carefully so that you're really informed what does it

[0:54:34] Voice 16: actually say and what does it not say because that's really the crux of it and then you know

[0:54:41] Voice 16: just circling back this is trust council that does protocols or doesn't and

[0:54:51] Voice 5: that's a draft

[0:54:51] Voice 5: protocol agreement um well it's

[0:54:54] Voice 5: signed no

[0:54:55] Voice 15: it has not been signed yeah

[0:54:56] Voice 5: yeah so

[0:54:59] Voice 15: this uh protocol that

[0:55:00] Voice 15: that hasn't been signed yet was in 2023 is it is it a fact that if it is signed that it would

[0:55:10] Voice 15: would legitimize a government-to-government relationship

[0:55:13] Voice 15: between Island Trust and the First Nations?

[0:55:19] Voice 5: I think that's some of the information that we'll ask staff to bring back

[0:55:23] Voice 5: because it is the province that holds the duty to consult

[0:55:28] Voice 5: and the government-to-government relationship.

[0:55:30] Voice 5: The province structures our legislation, which is the Islands Trust Act,

[0:55:34] Voice 5: which mandates that we work in cooperation with First Nations.

[0:55:39] Voice 5: so cooperating means developing protocols to work together it does not change the law or the

[0:55:46] Voice 5: legislation that frames our work it it's protocols is about how we work together it's processes

[0:55:55] Voice 5: so

[0:55:55] Voice 15: let me rephrase that if that protocol is signed then a relationship will occur between

[0:56:09] Voice 15: I don't trust and First Nations that doesn't exist now is that correct

[0:56:17] Voice 15: relationship does exist to government as it exists already yeah the referral

[0:56:23] Voice 5: process is that we draft bylaws they go out for referral to other governments

[0:56:30] Voice 5: and agencies including First Nations we get that information back we consider it

[0:56:35] Voice 5: and then our bylaws go forward for public comment and then they go to the minister for adoption

[0:56:40] Voice 5: that is the process that exists that's government to government it has existed for 15 years what's

[0:56:46] Voice 19: the purpose of the protocol because

[0:56:47] Voice 5: when there's items that we need additional discussion to really

[0:56:52] Voice 5: understand you know what

[0:56:54] Voice 5: does the luskete community think about this what does the

[0:56:57] Voice 5: non-spiritual nation think about this we need a meeting time to discuss and flesh it out

[0:57:02] Voice 5: it's not creating a bylaw but it's leading to better um drafting of bylaws basically which

[0:57:11] Voice 5: would all go through the typical legislative process it's not a different it's just a better

[0:57:16] Voice 5: structured way of working together it

[0:57:19] Voice 15: wouldn't be fair to say that if that protocol is signed

[0:57:23] Voice 15: it would define both parties i

[0:57:28] Voice 7: think that's a

[0:57:28] Voice 16: chair if

[0:57:29] Voice 7: i could just yeah it's

[0:57:31] Voice 16: a non-binding

[0:57:32] Voice 16: agreement i know i sent you a

[0:57:33] Voice 16: copy of it i suggest you go back and reread it it talks

[0:57:37] Voice 16: eight nine points on the purpose if you don't understand it and you need like a more in-depth

[0:57:44] Voice 16: sort of legalistic view i know our lawyers do these things we don't set them up uh you know

[0:57:50] Voice 16: get in touch with like david marler's kind of our ledge guy if you want to find out what it

[0:57:56] Voice 16: actually means from a more in-depth like that kind of look at it that's my recommendation well

[0:58:03] Voice 5: well we're asking staff to provide some information um related to some of these

[0:58:09] Voice 5: questions that have come up today and i think they're it's really good to understand the

[0:58:14] Voice 5: purpose of a protocol agreement does it define or constrain or have new um powers for governments

[0:58:22] Voice 5: All of that, it's nothing that we can really obviously answer to your satisfaction today.

[0:58:27] Voice 15: Would you disagree or agree that it sets a precedence for a relationship?

[0:58:32] Voice 15: I'm

[0:58:33] Voice 5: not going to say I agree or disagree with anything.

[0:58:35] Voice 5: There is, I think, more information is needed.

[0:58:39] Voice 5: Okay.

[0:58:44] Voice 6: I'd just like to add the fact that you're having all these meetings with the First Nations group

[0:58:50] Voice 6: to get a feel of what they're wanting and how many meetings have you had with the community

[0:58:56] Voice 6: this community i've personally

[0:58:59] Voice 5: come to luskete and we're 20

[0:59:02] Voice 5: more times that i've had a meeting

[0:59:04] Voice 5: with this not on this first nation i have a much better idea of what the luskete community is

[0:59:09] Voice 5: thinking uh in terms of what i've heard and i've come to some of your community events

[0:59:14] Voice 5: whereas these meetings with Nanaas leadership are very rare and it's really a time that we listen

[0:59:22] Voice 5: and we just start to get an understanding of one another it's very very preliminary work

[0:59:31] Voice 5: final question

[0:59:38] Voice 5: Mr. Olson

[0:59:40] Voice 14: well I have a few more just on this topic I was understanding from

[0:59:47] Voice 14: from councillor Brent Edwards that you're invited to meetings of the chief and council

[0:59:53] Voice 14: which is not just a councillor or two which is what I heard you say today

[1:00:00] Voice 14: So, do you not recall all of their chief and council being present at the meetings?

[1:00:06] Voice 14: That's a follow-up to our discussion.

[1:00:09] Voice 14: I have another question.

[1:00:11] Voice 8: I

[1:00:12] Voice 16: think, if I could, Chair, you were talking about the working group.

[1:00:16] Voice 16: Working group is not necessarily all of chief and council.

[1:00:19] Voice 16: Our last one, Chief Edwards, actually wasn't there.

[1:00:22] Voice 16: So, it also wasn't the whole chief and council.

[1:00:24] Voice 16: Council. And that was, as I also let you know, that was Island Trust staff presenting to

[1:00:33] Voice 16: them on what is Island Trust and what does it do.

[1:00:38] Voice 14: The question that I emailed your planner, I'll just read it out. Is he online?

[1:00:46] Voice 14: You may

[1:00:47] Voice 5: read out your question.

[1:00:49] Voice 14: So it says, Hi, Stephen. At the top of page 29 of the upcoming agenda package, a chart

[1:00:55] Voice 14: it advises that three lots would be prevented in potential future subdivisions 1307 versus 1304.

[1:01:05] Voice 14: how did you come up with those numbers is it based on actual lot sizes or hypothetical lot sizes

[1:01:11] Voice 14: if it's actual lot sizes could you describe what sections those three lots are in

[1:01:17] Voice 14: and or identify the lot sizes themselves okay

[1:01:21] Voice 5: so when we get to that section of our agenda um

[1:01:24] Voice 5: I'll ask the planner if they can clarify how they...

[1:01:29] Voice 5: I haven't finished.

[1:01:31] Voice 14: It also suggests that there are no existing lots

[1:01:34] Voice 14: between 64 hectares and 64.73 hectares.

[1:01:38] Voice 14: Is that a known fact?

[1:01:40] Voice 14: Thank you.

[1:01:44] Voice 14: So you think that will be answered

[1:01:46] Voice 14: when you have that discussion?

[1:01:48] Voice 5: If you've asked your question,

[1:01:48] Voice 5: we'll do our best and request staff to answer it for sure.

[1:01:56] Voice 14: Trustee Peterson mentioned this in his report today and he also reported this in

[1:02:03] Voice 14: the other newspaper that the there was an approval of the updated policy statement

[1:02:09] Voice 14: amendment policy 1.2.1 and I reported in the march issue of our island times that this means

[1:02:18] Voice 14: means that this will give indigenous governing bodies the power to choose which policies will

[1:02:26] Voice 14: be reviewed and changed and eliminate all consultation with the public. So I'm assuming

[1:02:31] Voice 14: that... I

[1:02:33] Voice 5: think that is your assertion and it doesn't sound true.

[1:02:36] Voice 14: Well, that's why I'm asking

[1:02:37] Voice 14: a question. That's why I would love to have this dialogue with you so that I can get clarity.

[1:02:41] Voice 14: and that's the point right so in the staff report it says i can read it out requiring

[1:02:51] Voice 14: that trust council engage with indigenous governing bodies to identify policy statement

[1:02:57] Voice 14: topic review priorities within one year of its term in office consistent with trust council

[1:03:05] Voice 14: 2025 to 2028 strategic plan key initiative 1.1.2 so that sounds like indigenous governing bodies

[1:03:17] Voice 14: get to choose what are the priorities it also says removing the expectation that trust council

[1:03:25] Voice 14: engage the public i'm assuming non-indigenous public meaning us when determining its policy

[1:03:33] Voice 14: statement topic review priorities. So those two statements are in the staff

[1:03:38] Voice 14: report. My interpretation of it is no longer consult the LISKEY public, only

[1:03:46] Voice 14: consult Indigenous governing body.

[1:03:49] Voice 5: That is not correct.

[1:03:51] Voice 14: So you're saying these were...

[1:03:53] Voice 5: So I'm going to ask that you email us those questions and

[1:03:57] Voice 14: we can ask staff to

[1:03:58] Voice 5: clarify thank you but that is um and again this is a draft implementation policy for

[1:04:04] Voice 5: future revisions and consultation with the public of course is always going to be top priority and

[1:04:11] Voice 5: ongoing um we are endeavoring to consult with indigenous governing bodies about what are the key

[1:04:18] Voice 5: items that um they would like to see addressed because of course their interests are affected

[1:04:25] Voice 5: I think we have strayed pretty far

[1:04:28] Voice 16: very, very quickly. I just recommend that you go back and reread that your interpretation is I don't, I would say it's inaccurate.

[1:04:38] Voice 16: It also mentions that the topic review inventory could be added on request by a trustee, trust council, newly elected trust.

[1:04:50] Voice 16: anyway go back and reread it you're you're picking out certain parts and you're glossing over the

[1:04:56] Voice 16: rest from my view well i worked on this a lot we're not

[1:05:00] Voice 16: we're not delving into it it's also

[1:05:02] Voice 16: trust councils it's not this this local trustee you're not just tell us then

[1:05:07] Voice 14: tell us your

[1:05:08] Voice 14: interpretation that's

[1:05:09] Voice 16: my interpretation is that what it says says that that we will engage with

[1:05:15] Voice 16: Indigenous Governing Bodies on topics doesn't mean that we have to do like you're trying to

[1:05:21] Voice 16: the way you're framing it is that they're going to direct the work and the public will not be

[1:05:26] Voice 16: consulted that's not the case it means that we are going to ask them hey we're thinking of doing

[1:05:33] Voice 16: this work why do you think we're also going to be asking the other members of the public like

[1:05:38] Voice 16: you're trying to make this exclusive thing that's not I'm not I'm this

[1:05:42] Voice 5: is I'm cutting off debate

[1:05:43] Voice 5: because this is definitely

[1:05:45] Voice 5: going into a back and forth about a report that's already public that

[1:05:49] Voice 5: you have one interpretation you've asked for an interpretation trustee peterson's given it

[1:05:53] Voice 5: and the subject is closed thank you is there

[1:05:56] Voice 5: one last thing which

[1:05:57] Voice 14: is if you're going to ask

[1:05:58] Voice 14: a group i'm sorry

[1:05:59] Voice 14: your privilege

[1:06:03] Voice 5: is going to be removed if you continue to speak

[1:06:08] Voice 5: it's thank you anybody else okay with that i'll close uh town hall thank you for your questions

[1:06:22] Voice 5: they do clarify areas that we need to make um we need to bring more information forward to the

[1:06:29] Voice 5: public so thank you so much okay so now we'll move into section six we've got minutes

[1:06:37] Voice 5: Minutes, two sets for adoption, page three, the minutes of February 9th, 2026.

[1:06:49] Voice 19: Nothing for me.

[1:06:52] Voice 19: Okay.

[1:06:54] Voice 5: We'll take it that the minutes of February 9th, 2026 be adopted by general consent.

[1:07:02] Voice 5: And then the minutes of May 4th, held in this hall.

[1:07:09] Voice 5: any changes or amendments okay you take it that the minutes of may 4th 2026 be adopted

[1:07:21] Voice 5: as presented and we've got the public hearing record uh also from that date for receipt for

[1:07:29] Voice 5: information and we'll move into our follow-up action report are there any updates from staff

[1:07:38] Voice 5: or questions for staff on items in the follow-up action reports have any

[1:07:57] Voice 8: questions

[1:07:58] Voice 19: there's no

[1:08:03] Voice 5: delegations and no applications or referrals so we'll move

[1:08:07] Voice 5: into 10.1 our local Trust Committee projects minor project we've got the

[1:08:12] Voice 5: targeted land use bylaw amendment review minimum lot size for subdivision staff

[1:08:18] Voice 5: staff report on page 27 and assisting us today is Planner McCargar to answer questions and

[1:08:28] Voice 5: present the report if you'd like to go ahead.

[1:08:31] Planner McCargar: Yeah hi everyone I'm Marlis McCargar and I'm

[1:08:35] Planner McCargar: just filling in for Planner Baugh today so I'll do my best. He's the one that authored this report

[1:08:41] Planner McCargar: but do my best to answer any questions. So the report responds to the LTC's direction from

[1:08:47] Planner McCargar: from May 4th to prepare a land use by-law amendment limiting subdivision potential for lots

[1:08:54] Planner McCargar: 64.74 hectares or larger. Although staff are recommending the LTC proceed no further with

[1:09:01] Planner McCargar: the project, staff have also prepared a draft by-law and project charter should the LTC wish

[1:09:06] Planner McCargar: to continue. Staff's recommendation is based on additional analysis completed since the May

[1:09:11] Planner McCargar: meeting. The analysis found that the proposed amendment would reduce the maximum subdivision

[1:09:19] Planner McCargar: potential in subdivision district A by only three lots out of a total potential of 1,307 lots or

[1:09:27] Planner McCargar: approximately 0.23%. Given this limited effect, staff do not consider the project to be an

[1:09:34] Planner McCargar: efficient use of LTC resources, nor does it meet the intent of a minor project, which is expected

[1:09:39] Planner McCargar: to result in a more substantive and meaningful planning outcome. Given that, staff are recommending

[1:09:48] Planner McCargar: to proceed no further. However, staff have prepared a draft bylaw, bylaw number 108,

[1:09:54] Planner McCargar: in accordance with the LTC's direction. As drafted, the bylaw would increase the minimum

[1:09:59] Planner McCargar: lot area for subdivision from 4 hectares to 4.05 hectares for lots 64.74 hectares or greater

[1:10:07] Planner McCargar: within subdivision district A. And during the drafting, staff identified a few unintended

[1:10:13] Planner McCargar: outcomes. For example, under the proposed 64.74 hectare threshold, a slightly smaller parcel

[1:10:20] Planner McCargar: could have greater subdivision potential than a slightly larger parcel. So the amendment could

[1:10:26] Planner McCargar: also create inconsistencies between subdivision potential and dwelling potential because it

[1:10:32] Planner McCargar: It changes the subdivision standards, but not the dwelling standards.

[1:10:38] Planner McCargar: So if the LTC wishes to proceed, staff recommend amending the threshold from 64.74 hectares to 64 hectares before first reading.

[1:10:47] Planner McCargar: Staff's analysis also found that this would avoid those drafting issues without changing the overall subdivision potential.

[1:10:54] Planner McCargar: So project charter has also been prepared to clarify the project scope, objectives and timeline if the LTC chooses to continue.

[1:11:04] Planner McCargar: So staff are recommending proceed no further because it would result in only a marginal reduction in subdivision potential and is not considered an efficient use of planning resources.

[1:11:15] Planner McCargar: However, the draft bylaw is included as well as the project charter.

[1:11:19] Planner McCargar: so I'm happy to take any questions. I do have a sort of brief answer to the question that was

[1:11:31] Planner McCargar: asked earlier just about where the numbers came from for the lot sizes and the data in the staff

[1:11:42] Planner McCargar: report is from our GIS data, which comes from BC Assessment.

[1:11:48] Planner McCargar: Thank

[1:11:51] Voice 5: you, Planner McCarver.

[1:11:53] Voice 5: So, Trustees, you had a draft resolution.

[1:11:57] Voice 5: Do you want to get into discussion before we announce a motion?

[1:12:03] Voice 16: Sure.

[1:12:04] Voice 16: So, I mean, I read the report with interest.

[1:12:09] Voice 16: And what I took away is that what's actually going to be useful for the

[1:12:14] Voice 16: local trust committee if we're looking at changing the subdivision rules looking at the density

[1:12:20] Voice 16: potential is that what's really more useful is to do is to have an analysis of the subdivision

[1:12:28] Voice 16: potential subdivision potential across all of the subdivision districts not just district a

[1:12:34] Voice 16: get a report back on lot size data and options that the local trust committee can consider

[1:12:43] Voice 16: to limit creation of additional lots or increase density.

[1:12:47] Voice 16: That was really the crux of what we're trying to look at.

[1:12:53] Voice 16: And obviously there's not enough time in this term being our last meeting

[1:13:00] Voice 16: for us to do that work, but I do have a draft motion.

[1:13:06] Voice 16: I'd like the local trust committee to consider requesting that work from staff

[1:13:12] Voice 16: so that the new local trust committee has that data and analysis and options to look at.

[1:13:19] Voice 16: And I think that would inform the discussion.

[1:13:23] Voice 16: I think there's probably a real need to have the hard data

[1:13:29] Voice 16: and then have some community discussions on what do we want to do.

[1:13:36] Voice 16: I thought the public hearing was really interesting.

[1:13:40] Voice 16: so the law of unintended consequences comes up but um i think we need to have a community

[1:13:46] Voice 16: discussion do we want to leave things as they are when we start looking at the number of lots

[1:13:52] Voice 16: that are allowable right now and um imagine what a build-out would be are we content to leave things

[1:14:01] Voice 16: as they are do we feel like we want to change things and i think that's a super important like

[1:14:07] Voice 16: Like that's probably the most important discussion to have with the community before we delve into more.

[1:14:15] Voice 16: So I'd like to focus the staff to do that work and then to bring this report and the project charter to the new local trust committee so they can have that analysis, the new analysis, and then consider, obviously, in that new term, what they want to do.

[1:14:34] Voice 16: Okay.

[1:14:35] Voice 5: So, but just going back to your request, I want to ask the planner, you know, subdivision, you got three districts, and only district A is a four hectare minimum parcel area. B is eight hectares and C is 64, 65 hectares. What would an analysis of the other two subdivision areas yield?

[1:14:58] Voice 16: Well, it would give us the total subdivision potential for the entire island.

[1:15:05] Voice 16: obviously a is more permissive than b and c but if we're if we're going to look at the data for

[1:15:12] Voice 16: the whole island let's look at all of it okay

[1:15:14] Voice 5: but a 65 hectare minimum parcel area is not

[1:15:19] Voice 5: four hectares like the intent of the plan was to to deal with the 10 acre minimum which translates

[1:15:28] Voice 5: it's roughly to four hectares but in the other two subdivisions areas there are eight hectare

[1:15:33] Voice 5: minimums and 65 hectare minimums i

[1:15:36] Voice 16: understand that what i'm looking for is i'm looking for

[1:15:41] Voice 16: staff to generate a data set that covers all of the allowable lots on the island

[1:15:49] Voice 16: because i think that there needs to be as i was saying like we need to have this community

[1:15:54] Voice 16: conversation so let's get let's get the totals let's see what is what's allowable right now

[1:16:01] Voice 16: and then have that conversation and so the only reason i'm asking i i mean there aren't going to

[1:16:05] Voice 16: be a ton of lots coming out of b and c we know that but just so that they're included in the

[1:16:11] Voice 16: data so the data is complete okay

[1:16:14] Voice 5: but that would change the charter and the scope then

[1:16:17] Voice 16: but it's not

[1:16:20] Voice 5: well you're but

[1:16:21] Voice 16: what i'm asking for is i'm asking the staff to do this piece of work that could

[1:16:24] Voice 16: It could affect how a local trust committee decides to proceed or not proceed with By-law 107, By-law 108, or something totally different.

[1:16:35] Voice 16: Just to ask so that the next local trust committee has data.

[1:16:40] Voice 5: I understand. To do that, it would change the entire minor project, though.

[1:16:45] Voice 5: Because the minor project purpose was to align the minimum lot area on large lots in subdivision District A.

[1:16:52] Voice 5: so it

[1:16:53] Voice 16: hasn't changed i understand and i think that based on the reports we've got based on

[1:16:58] Voice 16: the public hearing we got based on this report i think it is going to require a rethink obviously

[1:17:04] Voice 16: we've run out of runway i'm just requesting that the new local trust committee has data to work

[1:17:10] Voice 16: with when they decide which direction if any they want to go with this that's the whole purpose

[1:17:17] Voice 16: it's not presupposing that this particular project as it stands goes ahead right

[1:17:25] Voice 11: yeah

[1:17:26] Planner McCargar: through the chair if i can um just add something and maybe rpm jammer it can just um

[1:17:32] Planner McCargar: add as well just regarding resourcing and because it does sound like this is a new minor project

[1:17:39] Planner McCargar: although it's kind of piggybacking on what you've already done it is a new minor project and whether

[1:17:43] Planner McCargar: whether that really makes sense to start when there is a new LTC that will be coming or whether

[1:17:50] Planner McCargar: this just goes on a future projects list. And once that new LTC is elected, then their first

[1:17:57] Planner McCargar: meeting, they look through the future projects list. They decide what the priorities are and

[1:18:01] Planner McCargar: direct staff from there. It just feels a little bit preemptive to begin a lot of work over the

[1:18:06] Planner McCargar: summer on something that may or may not be a priority next term?

[1:18:15] Voice 8: Yeah I mean I mean I did

[1:18:20] Voice 16: check in with RPM Jamrat and and I did get a reply that staff and do the work and report out but it

[1:18:29] Voice 16: would stay as a report until the next local trust committee has a chance to look at it.

[1:18:34] Voice 5: Well I guess

[1:18:35] Voice 5: the question to rpm jamra is can we request staff to do a report that's not actually attached to an

[1:18:41] Voice 5: active project um

[1:18:44] Voice 8: do you have any

[1:18:47] Voice 5: and and

[1:18:49] Voice 8: we'll go to yeah

[1:18:52] Voice 5: let's take this one at a time rpm

[1:18:55] Voice 5: general do you have any suggestions or considerations from the staff's perspective

[1:19:03] Voice 17: if it's so it's a bit of a tricky piece here to try and understand what the scope of work could be

[1:19:10] Voice 17: to report back on for an ask of of looking at all of the subdivision potential on the island that

[1:19:18] Voice 17: could be a bigger work that could be the you know at the for the time of a minor project

[1:19:25] Voice 17: Or it could be something fairly quick and easy. But I don't have that information to advise, you know, to understand the scale of that. Whereas I think Planner Bar would have that in terms of being more familiar with this particular, with your particular land use bylaw.

[1:19:45] Voice 17: So it could be an action that you can give us through resolution. However, if it turns out to be a larger research item that will take some time, that will be something that we'll have to report back to you on to say this is actually a larger project and would be more suitable for a minor project.

[1:20:08] Voice 17: So if the LTC is comfortable with that approach, but any sort of analysis usually goes into the realm of a minor project because it does involve some time.

[1:20:25] Voice 17: and I if I may to further that if you don't want to lose sight of this particular

[1:20:31] Voice 17: piece of information that the LTC could request to add it to the future project list so that

[1:20:39] Voice 17: it can be looked at all together and and and that would be a good approach is to have

[1:20:45] Voice 17: the local trust committee even current and outgoing outgoing and new LTC to look at what's

[1:20:52] Voice 17: on that list does the current ltc have that list correct um sort of as that passing on of the notes

[1:21:00] Voice 17: right to the next ltc um to help set them up as they review the work program

[1:21:06] Voice 5: yeah trustee laroni

[1:21:11] Voice 5: we have thoughts on this

[1:21:12] Voice 4: my thought is um so the reason we're making this change if i understand

[1:21:17] Voice 4: correctly is that it's because we colloquially say 10 acre minimum for one that's how it started

[1:21:23] Voice 4: and now we're concerned about how not that not being actually officially accurate is going to

[1:21:30] Voice 4: change our density but I mean one it's it is a colloquial expression yeah I've taken a minimum

[1:21:39] Voice 4: on the ski but also I'm just really not seeing that it makes a lot of difference

[1:21:48] Voice 4: and I'm considering budget and the staff time it's going to take up and take away from

[1:21:53] Voice 4: our other projects and just if it is has such a minimal effect to our density and also it is

[1:22:03] Voice 4: just to correct something we say is it really the best course to be taking this or at all

[1:22:17] Voice 5: yeah it's it is kind of tricky because as we discovered during the public hearing the

[1:22:24] Voice 5: the unintended consequences that relate to density that are somewhat separate from subdivision

[1:22:32] Voice 5: potential but the results could be that you have dwellings that would have to be removed

[1:22:38] Voice 5: or a lot could not be subdivided means this does need some thought however i'm not sure that

[1:22:49] Voice 5: trustee peterson what you've proposed to do an analysis of the all the subdivision areas

[1:22:58] Voice 5: is going to yield more like information that'll change the outcome like what

[1:23:10] Voice 19: well we

[1:23:10] Voice 16: don't have the information really clearly but i think it's kind of hard to

[1:23:14] Voice 16: presuppose whether it changes the outcome or not that's that you know really the intent from my

[1:23:20] Voice 16: point of view is to um is to give the incoming local trust committee more information than we

[1:23:29] Voice 16: have available right now i think we had you know hindsight being 2020 if we requested that work

[1:23:36] Voice 16: before we dealt into the other bits the minor project we might have framed the minor project

[1:23:42] Voice 16: slightly differently so but

[1:23:45] Voice 5: what is the purpose of assessing all i mean getting all the information

[1:23:50] Voice 5: but for what purpose like the eight hectare minimum and 65 hectare minimum means these are not

[1:23:58] Voice 5: 4.05 divisions these are 65 hectares translated into acres so there's not about the 10 acre

[1:24:08] Voice 5: minimum i'm trying to figure out what are you trying to achieve okay

[1:24:10] Voice 16: so it's it sounds to me

[1:24:13] Voice 16: like you're getting a little caught up on the inclusion of the additional subdivision subdivision

[1:24:17] Voice 16: districts and i agree that there's going to be minimal potential yield out of them the only

[1:24:24] Voice 16: reason i'm saying all is so that we've got the total so

[1:24:29] Voice 5: it's actually build out potential yeah

[1:24:32] Voice 5: that's

[1:24:32] Voice 16: essentially what we're looking at

[1:24:33] Voice 5: you're looking at

[1:24:34] Voice 16: like subdivision potential and then

[1:24:37] Voice 16: build up density potential that is a

[1:24:40] Voice 16: different project then it has some information now i mean

[1:24:44] Voice 16: you know if this if this committee doesn't want to request that work then that's fine yeah i'm just

[1:24:51] Voice 16: thinking about ways to try and set up the next local trust committee to sort of be empowered

[1:24:57] Voice 16: with some information but

[1:25:00] Voice 5: do you agree do you hear me that it's a different scope of work you're

[1:25:04] Voice 5: actually talking about like build out potential whereas the 10-acre conversion was the specific

[1:25:13] Voice 5: purpose of that but

[1:25:15] Voice 16: i mean i don't know to me the subdivision potential and the build-out or

[1:25:20] Voice 16: density potential are intricately interlocked like they they are so interrelated i don't see

[1:25:28] Voice 16: how we can you know really deeply consider one without including all of it that's where i was

[1:25:35] Voice 16: coming from basically my request was to you know ask staff to do some work so that the local trust

[1:25:44] Voice 16: committee has you know some hard data and then they can with the hard data in front of them they

[1:25:50] Voice 16: can consider what they want to do next with this kind of question so that's

[1:25:54] Voice 16: really the intent i do

[1:25:56] Voice 5: see how this could be useful in the pre-work for an ocp review um one of the challenges was that

[1:26:05] Voice 5: the community did not really have discussion on additional housing options as many other

[1:26:14] Voice 5: communities have been um and you know the regional plan with with housing and how to provide for

[1:26:22] Voice 5: multiple levels of society so that didn't make it in really into the draft policies that came

[1:26:29] Voice 5: for it from the community. So if you're suggesting the build-out potential, I mean,

[1:26:37] Voice 5: the build-out potential would be calculated through an OCP review, would it not,

[1:26:42] Voice 5: Connor McCarter? Like, once the OCP review is initiated, part of the scope of work is usually

[1:26:53] Voice 5: understanding the build-out potential.

[1:26:56] Planner McCargar: Typically, like, that's definitely what we've done in the

[1:26:58] Planner McCargar: the last um two ocp reviews that we've undertaken recently so i mean that would all get kind of

[1:27:05] Planner McCargar: scoped out as the project charter is getting formed but that that is typically part of part

[1:27:11] Planner McCargar: of the work yeah

[1:27:29] Voice 8: you're asking her

[1:27:30] Voice 5: briefing a report and some analysis which could relate to

[1:27:35] Voice 5: the ocp review but it doesn't really relate to this minor project well

[1:27:39] Voice 16: i think we don't want

[1:27:40] Voice 5: to start another minor project because that's no no no what

[1:27:43] Voice 16: i'm trying to say is like okay so we

[1:27:46] Voice 16: we had the first version of the minor project we had the public hearing and then we changed

[1:27:53] Voice 16: the minor project based on what we heard and now we've got this report and so what i'm taking from

[1:28:01] Voice 16: all of that process is that this local trust committee and the next local trust committee

[1:28:07] Voice 16: to do the work effectively should have data that's you know that's the crux of it right now but data

[1:28:14] Voice 5: okay the problem is is subdivision potential is is projected uh information it is not actual

[1:28:24] Voice 5: densities so you know

[1:28:26] Voice 16: it's but what could it's it's what is allowed within our current

[1:28:33] Voice 16: bylaws is knowing if if every lot that got subdivided it's allowed to be subdivided

[1:28:40] Voice 16: given the current system what is the number yeah which

[1:28:43] Voice 16: that i don't know what that number is that

[1:28:45] Voice 5: would happen through an ocp review typically um so staff is this something that we could request

[1:28:54] Voice 5: as a piece of work knowing that it's probably more appropriate within the context of an ocp review

[1:29:01] Voice 5: but this community has been you know working on that for a while and this

[1:29:09] Voice 5: could help support the eventual understanding of how density could be

[1:29:20] Voice 5: distributed and how much what the build-out would likely be as trustee

[1:29:26] Voice 5: Peterson saying that's useful information I'm not really supportive of

[1:29:32] Voice 5: starting a new minor project but if we could ask for that and then see how much work would be

[1:29:40] Voice 5: entailed and then get that report back for November and if we can't get a report then

[1:29:48] Voice 5: then we'll know that information at least.

[1:29:54] Voice 5: I guess that wasn't a question.

[1:29:56] Voice 5: Okay, I see your hand.

[1:30:02] Voice 17: Um, so I'm looking at, um, what I would suggest is, so there's a couple of ways this could

[1:30:10] Voice 17: happen.

[1:30:10] Voice 17: Um, it could be a resolution with direction to staff, um, to, to provide a report on that

[1:30:19] Voice 17: information.

[1:30:19] Voice 17: Staff can look into that and report out that information.

[1:30:24] Voice 17: I think maybe a better approach may be to add it to the future projects list and look at all of the items that are desired for changes in the official community plan bylaw and in the land use bylaw.

[1:30:44] Voice 17: Because there could be, if there is a longer list, and I'm looking at the future projects list on the agenda for reference on page 54 of the agenda.

[1:30:53] Voice 17: There are some items there that are listed. So sort of looking at it more holistically, so which can be done, I think, as part of a bigger scope of work. And then you can understand, while a report may give you some good data, it's also good to know what's the ultimate goal that you're looking to work towards for any changes in your OCP or your land use bylaw.

[1:31:23] Voice 17: So my suggestion would be to look to the future project list and add it to the future project list, along with any other items to look at, at the same time.

[1:31:35] Voice 17: And for that reason, because it seems like there's some deeper questions or time to want to dig into maybe about land use in general and subdivision.

[1:31:49] Voice 5: Thank you for pointing us to the future projects report.

[1:31:54] Voice 5: support um it's something i've been asking local trust committees that i chair elsewhere to we

[1:32:00] Voice 5: we've had some discussion on the future projects report um because it's essentially

[1:32:08] Voice 5: it really is important to capture every you know all the unfinished items that we discuss that are

[1:32:14] Voice 5: important to the community that we want to see addressed and capture them so that the next ltc

[1:32:19] Voice 5: can have discussion so i definitely support and i see subdivision regulations including lot size

[1:32:28] Voice 5: proof of water public access to the foreshore were items that were noted for the ocp review

[1:32:33] Voice 5: august 20th 2022 so this is sort of items that were left over from last ltc shoreline management

[1:32:43] Voice 5: management plan, housing, marine conservation zone, update the OCP in regards to consistency

[1:32:50] Voice 5: with the regional conservation plan. There is a lot of work to do. I mean, this local

[1:33:01] Voice 5: trust committee can ask for it. And if staff are not, you know, if it is going to be a

[1:33:06] Voice 5: bigger piece of work, it's

[1:33:07] Voice 19: just

[1:33:08] Voice 5: going to have to fit in the OCP review anyways. That's kind

[1:33:12] Voice 5: of where it belongs i'm just not supportive of starting a new minor project with a

[1:33:18] Voice 5: new defined scope of work that we're going to have to wrestle through so

[1:33:24] Voice 5: yeah just

[1:33:26] Voice 16: to be clear my my intention is really to give what we can give to the incoming local

[1:33:34] Voice 16: trust committee so they can decide on their priorities from a place that's maybe a little

[1:33:39] Voice 16: bit more that's what i'm looking i'm not trying to start a new project

[1:33:43] Voice 7: i

[1:33:45] Voice 16: mean i'm inclined to

[1:33:47] Voice 16: follow the alternate recommendation and forward the project charter and draft bylaw 108 to the

[1:33:54] Voice 16: new ltc again because this we're essentially the lame documents right but i'm i'm i don't want to

[1:34:03] Voice 16: make decisions that in any way hamper an incoming local trust committee trying to find ways that

[1:34:08] Voice 16: find approaches that empower so anyway i moved at the luskidi i'm a local trust committee request

[1:34:14] Voice 16: staff to conduct an analysis of subdivision potential across all subdivision districts

[1:34:18] Voice 16: and report back with lot size data and options to limit creation of additional lots and increase

[1:34:24] Voice 16: density before

[1:34:26] Voice 5: it's seconded um so you're asking for only lot sizes and density i'm asking for

[1:34:41] Voice 16: analysis of subdivision potential and reporting with lot size data options to limit creation of

[1:34:48] Voice 16: additional lots and increase density well

[1:34:50] Voice 5: options to limit creation of new lots is yeah that's not

[1:34:58] Voice 5: just asking for data that's asking for it's

[1:35:01] Voice 16: data and options i mean this is this is the exact

[1:35:03] Voice 16: motion that i sent out to everyone i

[1:35:05] Voice 5: understand i understand um i'm just trying to like if you

[1:35:11] Voice 5: want to give a scope of work that's like including options that might be larger than staff could

[1:35:17] Voice 5: produce where if it's just a build out what is the build out potential based on current

[1:35:22] Voice 5: subdivision regulations i

[1:35:24] Voice 16: understood and i mean we've heard from staff i'm fully aware that there's

[1:35:30] Voice 16: capacity issues that this report might it's unlikely to come back while this local trust

[1:35:36] Voice 16: committees sitting all of that stuff staff will do what they can do and it's better than doing

[1:35:42] Voice 16: nothing that's my approach data

[1:35:54] Voice 8: okay

[1:35:58] Voice 5: my recommendation is you just stick with the lot

[1:36:01] Voice 5: size data and build out potential because if you add options to limit creation of additional lots

[1:36:10] Voice 5: and increase density that's like a follow-along of data accumulation and what you've said is you

[1:36:17] Voice 5: just want to know the data but you're asking for options and i think that's going to push it

[1:36:23] Voice 5: like there's a chance staff could come back with the first part like lot size data dwellings um

[1:36:33] Voice 5: but that's just my view right

[1:36:36] Voice 8: now that's rpm general in

[1:36:47] Voice 17: um in a request to report back on data

[1:36:50] Voice 17: the lot size data and build out analysis that that would be possible um to provide the ltc with that

[1:36:57] Voice 17: information um if there are um if there's work to delve into options um that would take more time

[1:37:06] Voice 17: i'm

[1:37:09] Voice 6: thinking we could get the first part done this next for november if you leave out the options

[1:37:16] Voice 19: so

[1:37:20] Voice 16: you're suggesting you would rather i amend the motion is that what you're

[1:37:25] Voice 5: i'm suggesting you

[1:37:26] Voice 5: just end it with report back with lot size data and build out potential

[1:37:36] Voice 5: Because that will give you the numbers that you're looking for based on the current land

[1:37:39] Voice 5: use by-law.

[1:37:43] Voice 5: What we do with the data, that's the next step, is to creating options or asking for

[1:37:49] Voice 5: options.

[1:38:04] Voice 16: Okay.

[1:38:06] Voice 16: So you're recommending taking out the options, et cetera, and putting in and build out potential.

[1:38:16] Voice 5: Staff, would that be achievable from what I'm hearing?

[1:38:21] Voice 5: I think that was...

[1:38:25] Voice 16: Okay. I then will I move that the Luskinia and Local Trust Committee request staff to conduct an analysis of subdivision potential across all subdivision districts and report back with lot-sized data and build-out potential.

[1:38:40] Voice 5: Moved. Do I have a seconder? Seconded by Trustee Laroni. Discussion on the motion?

[1:38:47] Voice 5: I

[1:38:47] Voice 19: think we already have that.

[1:38:48] Voice 5: we have had lots of discussion so i'll call the vote all those in favor and that is carried thank

[1:38:57] Voice 5: you so with the current proposed project charter do we want to defer this and place it on or i'm

[1:39:08] Voice 5: going to recommend that we proceed no further with this bylaw and proposed bylaw or place it on the

[1:39:15] Voice 5: future projects list or we can do some work on the future projects list and sort of embed it in there

[1:39:25] Voice 16: so i'm leaning towards alternative one which is requesting you know staff won't be doing any

[1:39:35] Voice 16: more work but we'll just bring this to the new local trust committee that's right

[1:39:38] Voice 5: include the

[1:39:39] Voice 5: project charter that's presented yeah okay so the alternatives presented on page 30 uh you're

[1:39:56] Voice 5: leaning towards number one now

[1:40:05] Voice 18: okay somebody want to make that motion i'll

[1:40:13] Voice 19: make a question

[1:40:14] Voice 19: i

[1:40:16] Voice 16: move that the lasquita island local trust committee request staff to include the project

[1:40:21] Voice 16: charter and draft bylaw number 108 as presented in the staff report dated july 6 2026 in the agenda

[1:40:27] Voice 16: package for the ski island local trust committee meeting scheduled for the earliest available

[1:40:32] Voice 16: Okay,

[1:40:34] Voice 5: move. Do I have a seconder? Seconder? Seconded by Trustee Leroni. Any discussion on the motion?

[1:40:41] Voice 5: My question is the earliest available opportunity, would that likely be the November meeting or the one after that?

[1:40:50] Voice 5: Because the November one is orientation. Is there likely to be discussion on that meeting?

[1:40:59] Voice 5: I

[1:41:00] Voice 17: believe you're correct chair um there is um a discussion to earmark those first

[1:41:07] Voice 17: LTC meetings as orientation so um hence the wording of earliest available opportunity

[1:41:13] Voice 17: because I think those are those particular orientation plans are sort of still getting

[1:41:19] Voice 17: worked out um so earliest opportunity after that um initial meeting would be

[1:41:26] Voice 17: I believe beginning of February right

[1:41:33] Voice 5: and then that report would be there and there'd probably

[1:41:36] Voice 5: be some discussion on the OCP review so figuring out how it all works together could be a February

[1:41:42] Voice 5: discussion.

[1:41:47] Voice 17: There's a motion on the floor so my question is regarding this motion is

[1:41:52] Voice 17: Regarding the project charter and what's included in it, I would like a refresher on that so it's clear for staff what that project charter would include.

[1:42:06] Voice 17: There is one attached as part of the agenda on page 34 of the agenda.

[1:42:15] Voice 17: That's the draft of project charter.

[1:42:17] Voice 17: So, my request is to ask the LTC just to make sure that information is accurate, and what else would need to be added to that.

[1:42:28] Voice 8: Yeah.

[1:42:29] Voice 16: So yeah, so I went directly from the alternative one, I use the wording there, which says as presented in the staff report in this agenda so.

[1:42:42] Voice 8: Well,

[1:42:43] Voice 16: like I'm not proposing that we delve into amending the project.

[1:42:48] Voice 16: We just send this to the next local trust committee and that they can start at the beginning of their term.

[1:42:56] Voice 16: Okay.

[1:42:57] Voice 5: Yeah.

[1:42:57] Voice 5: Whatever

[1:42:58] Voice 16: determination they wish.

[1:42:59] Voice 5: Yeah, we're not going to amend the project charter.

[1:43:01] Voice 16: It's just a

[1:43:02] Voice 5: proposed one.

[1:43:03] Voice 16: Just exactly alternative one.

[1:43:06] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:43:07] Voice 17: Thank you.

[1:43:09] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:43:10] Voice 5: Any more discussion on the motion?

[1:43:12] Voice 5: All those in favor?

[1:43:15] Voice 5: That is carried.

[1:43:17] Voice 5: Okay.

[1:43:17] Voice 5: Okay so this will proceed and come forward probably in November and that's the minor

[1:43:28] Voice 5: project that we had hoped to wrap up this term it's unfortunate but again I think it's more a

[1:43:36] Voice 5: OCP follow-along. Okay so we've got 10.2 which is an addendum. Through the chair can I just

[1:43:46] Planner McCargar: Just step in for one second before you move on. There was an additional recommendation in that alternative, and I just wanted to understand if you were going to proceed with that, which is to proceed no further with By-law 107.

[1:43:59] Voice 5: Oh, yes. Thank you. That's right. So that's the package of recommendations that would defer next steps, not cancel it. Well, no, it would cancel the work on By-law 107.

[1:44:15] Planner McCargar: But 108 still remains draft that will get forwarded to the new LTC.

[1:44:24] Voice 8: Oh, okay. Right. Okay.

[1:44:44] Voice 18: So would you like to read the second one, Kamar?

[1:44:53] Voice 5: Above the number two. Yeah. That's the number two. It's confusing.

[1:44:58] Voice 5: There's lots of number twos. Yeah.

[1:45:00] Voice 4: Okay. I move that Laskiniana Local Trust Committee receive no partner with

[1:45:04] Voice 4: bylaw number 107 cited as the luskin island land use bylaw number 78 2005 amendment number one 2005

[1:45:11] Voice 4: 25. thank

[1:45:13] Voice 5: you do i have a

[1:45:15] Voice 16: question okay

[1:45:16] Voice 5: um

[1:45:17] Voice 16: so my question for staff is the effect if

[1:45:22] Voice 16: if this motion does not to proceed no further does not succeed um

[1:45:30] Voice 16: what difference, if any, does that actually make?

[1:45:37] Planner McCargar: Well, my understanding is that Bylaw 107,

[1:45:40] Planner McCargar: if you choose not to proceed with it,

[1:45:42] Planner McCargar: it's just going to give direction to staff or legislative clerk

[1:45:46] Planner McCargar: to close that bylaw.

[1:45:48] Planner McCargar: So it doesn't just remain as an open bylaw,

[1:45:51] Planner McCargar: which is at, I'm not sure what reading you're at with that one.

[1:45:58] Planner McCargar: otherwise it will just yeah sit open at first reading when when that

[1:46:05] Planner McCargar: one my understanding is

[1:46:06] Planner McCargar: you weren't intending to proceed with that bylaw it would be bylaw 108 which was the new

[1:46:11] Planner McCargar: new draft that would would be forwarded okay yeah

[1:46:17] Voice 8: i think that makes sense

[1:46:19] Voice 8: just

[1:46:20] Planner McCargar: kind of wraps it up gotcha i'll

[1:46:28] Voice 5: second the motion so that we can uh debate it the motion is

[1:46:32] Voice 5: on the floor to um see no

[1:46:37] Voice 7: further

[1:46:39] Voice 5: with bylaw number 107 which reached first reading and then

[1:46:42] Voice 5: we paused and reconsidered what we were doing any more debate on the motion

[1:46:53] Voice 19: all

[1:46:54] Voice 5: those in favor uh any opposed saints that is carried sure

[1:47:05] Voice 16: you want to take a short maybe

[1:47:07] Voice 16: be 10-15 minutes sure

[1:47:10] Voice 5: uh let's take a well we're almost at lunch well no we don't typically have

[1:47:15] Voice 5: should we take a 20 minute recess and come back at 10 past or does staff need more time

[1:47:23] Voice 5: for a proper lunch break i'll

[1:47:31] Planner McCargar: leave it up to the ltc i'm okay with a shorter time if you want to

[1:47:34] Planner McCargar: keep it shorter

[1:47:35] Voice 5: okay let's do 20 minutes and come back at 10 after one please

[1:47:39] Voice 5: Thank you.

[2:10:15] Voice 18: It was a

[2:10:20] Voice 5: drafted bylaw that reached first reading,

[2:10:23] Voice 5: but then the scope of the project changed so we'd have to do a new draft and file on anyways

[2:10:29] Voice 5: which was supposed to be 108. right

[2:10:32] Voice 19: so 108 is going on

[2:10:33] Voice 19: yeah

[2:10:34] Voice 5: no

[2:10:35] Voice 19: i understand that but um

[2:10:39] Voice 19: yeah we don't have the time left

[2:11:02] Voice 5: Okay, we're going to get going please. Thank you folks, apologies we had a bit of a break.

[2:11:11] Voice 5: To those online who are watching, let's call this meeting back to order and we're going

[2:11:18] Voice 5: to proceed with 10.2, which is the major update, major project update, Lisketea Island Official

[2:11:25] Voice 5: community plan like these file overview we were to have a verbal update uh and i believe staff had

[2:11:33] Voice 5: in conversations um put together a report which was on the is added to the website and so we're

[2:11:44] Voice 5: considering that report and we would invite rpm general to present that report and the work today

[2:11:52] Voice 5: Thank

[2:11:53] Voice 17: you, Chair. So this, again, apologies for the late addition to the agenda. This is a, it's more than a project update. It's a request for direction as well, hence the staff report coming to you today.

[2:12:12] Voice 17: So the report, what the report outlines is some considerations that have been discussed

[2:12:20] Voice 17: among staff regarding the turning our minds to major projects for the upcoming fiscal

[2:12:27] Voice 17: and where this project currently sits.

[2:12:31] Voice 17: So I'll go through some of those items in the report and for the LTC's discussion and direction.

[2:12:38] Voice 17: So as part of the update to the major project as it currently stands, the Regional Planning Managers have had a review of the projects for the current fiscal year and continuing projects for next fiscal year.

[2:12:52] Voice 17: And as we've updated the LISC-ED LTC throughout the year due to constraints, and we're still experiencing some resourcing constraints, we've been unable to complete the project this fiscal year to date.

[2:13:08] Voice 17: So, also to recap, I thought it was important to also recognize that this has been part of an update from 2018.

[2:13:20] Voice 17: It received a second reading in 2021, and in 2022, the LTC paused to hear and discuss interests with Sonos Nation, which has not yet occurred to date.

[2:13:35] Voice 17: So, in addition to the project, in addition, rather, the project will also require an overall review and update to its scope and major project, to the scope as part of the major project, and would include a revised project charter.

[2:13:53] Voice 17: So that work in terms of revising the project charter has not occurred yet because it hasn't been picked up by the regional planning team due to their capacity at this time and working on other projects.

[2:14:08] Voice 17: The project was tentatively anticipated to initiate in fall of 2025, but that hasn't happened yet.

[2:14:17] Voice 17: So some of the issues and considerations that I'm flagging for the LTC's attention today is really to think about the next steps for the project and what the LTC would like to action, either now or in thinking about the end of this fiscal year and into the next fiscal year as we prepare for budget.

[2:14:41] Voice 17: So we still haven't, we haven't yet heard back from the Nation. Staff, and this is coming through my staff report today, hesitant to initiate discussion with the Nation, especially if we don't yet know when we're going to pick up this project and what the LTC, the incoming LTC may want to look at as part of a new project or scope.

[2:15:08] Voice 17: scope. Also introduced in this report is a new approach in pulling in the work from the Indigenous

[2:15:19] Voice 17: Relations Action Plan to develop what is being called an interest framework with nations. It's

[2:15:26] Voice 17: to represent work that would involve speaking with nations to understand how they would like to work

[2:15:33] Voice 17: on not just projects but overall and feeding that into and informing any

[2:15:39] Voice 17: project work that would happen. So in the case of the local trust committee,

[2:15:43] Voice 17: Leskeedi's local trust committee work, it would be this work that would feed into

[2:15:49] Voice 17: the OCP update that you would undertake in the future. And that's an

[2:15:55] Voice 17: option that we wanted to introduce if that was something as pre-work that the

[2:16:01] Voice 17: LTC was interested in doing. We've also noted concerns in terms of cultural safety that has

[2:16:10] Voice 17: come up during meetings, previous meetings, and the need to want to look into this matter further

[2:16:18] Voice 17: with senior management and come up with some mitigation options for the incoming local trust

[2:16:24] Voice 17: committee. And again, unfortunately, due to the timing constraints with the LTC meeting schedule,

[2:16:31] Voice 17: the budget timelines and the local election timeline, it does limit the completion of our

[2:16:36] Voice 17: deliverables to be able to get to you a business case in time for approval and have this conversation

[2:16:43] Voice 17: with you further than today. I understand today is your last business meeting. So understanding

[2:16:50] Voice 17: that constraint and what we can accomplish before then. So the rationale for the recommendation

[2:16:59] Voice 17: recommendation is therefore staff is seeking some direction on potential next steps leading up to

[2:17:04] Voice 17: considering a new project for next fiscal. One option could be to move this current project

[2:17:12] Voice 17: to the future projects list for the incoming LTC to review and refresh. So that could be

[2:17:19] Voice 17: refreshing the project scope for a future fiscal year. And at that time, the LTC can look at their

[2:17:26] Voice 17: work program overall for their term and decide what they would like to work on and do.

[2:17:32] Voice 17: Another option is to consider initiating this pre-work for an interest framework with nations

[2:17:39] Voice 17: and speaking with nations that the local trust committee could give some support to undertaking

[2:17:45] Voice 17: over the next fiscal and feeding into an eventual official community plan project.

[2:17:49] Voice 17: So, just to note on that second option, the LTC wouldn't have time to approve any business case submission prior to going to trust counsel.

[2:18:06] Voice 17: So, again, just calling out that constraint of timing.

[2:18:10] Voice 17: So, that might be something that should the LTC want to undertake a major project for next fiscal, we'll have to talk about a little bit further.

[2:18:20] Voice 17: So the recommendation before you is to, that staff are asking for your consideration, is to support a business case for work on an interest framework with nations for the LISC-ED Trust area.

[2:18:37] Voice 17: And that would serve as pre-work into a future OCP project and further that the project be placed, the OCP project be placed on the future project list for the incoming LTC to think about and consider as part of their work program.

[2:18:55] Voice 17: And I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. There are also alternatives on page of the addendum, on page three of the addendum. And I'll pause there for questions.

[2:19:10] Voice 17: I

[2:19:12] Voice 5: do have a question, Renee, but I'll turn to the trustees. Go ahead, Trustee Peterson.

[2:19:21] Voice 16: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, so I mean I've had plenty of conversations about the regional planning team capacity issues.

[2:19:32] Voice 16: I do have concerns with the notion of placing the project on the futures project list,

[2:19:40] Voice 16: because I don't I'm really concerned about doing what we can at the last meeting of our term to

[2:19:48] Voice 16: enable the work of the incoming local trust committee so I'm strongly leaning towards

[2:19:54] Voice 16: the preparation of the business case so that the new local trust committee at least has the option

[2:20:02] Voice 16: of pursuing the OCP project obviously able to decide what they will decide but if they don't

[2:20:10] Voice 16: have the funding request in place then that constraints them for doing the work so i don't

[2:20:15] Voice 16: want to set them up like that my question is and so knowing that the regional planning team

[2:20:24] Voice 16: is has some capacities constraints um and this project is unlikely to get their attention

[2:20:34] Voice 16: mention this fiscal. And I mean, I'm really interested in the notion of the interest framework.

[2:20:46] Voice 16: But knowing that the Liskety OCP project is probably not going to be seeing any work.

[2:20:55] Voice 16: What I'm considering is requesting the business case for for next fiscal for the LTC for their

[2:21:02] Voice 16: OCP project. But my question to staff is, could the work on the interest framework happen in the

[2:21:11] Voice 16: meantime while the LTC awaits their essentially coming up in the queue at the regional planning

[2:21:19] Voice 16: team for the OCP work?

[2:21:22] Voice 17: So through the chair, that work is not anticipated to happen this fiscal

[2:21:28] Voice 17: year to to my knowledge um this would be for next fiscal year is what um this new approach would be

[2:21:38] Voice 17: for right

[2:21:39] Voice 16: no i i don't i understand that but what i'm saying is since since the ocp work

[2:21:45] Voice 16: the start time when the region planning team has capacity is unknown um would it be completely

[2:21:57] Voice 16: unreasonable to ask for staff to do some work on the interest framework knowing that we don't know

[2:22:05] Voice 16: when the ocp work is going to start like i understand the point of the interest framework

[2:22:12] Voice 16: is to inform the ocp well

[2:22:15] Voice 5: and other everything else and

[2:22:17] Voice 16: everything else right

[2:22:17] Voice 5: it's not just

[2:22:19] Voice 5: ocp topics

[2:22:20] Voice 16: so just to make it a little bit more explicit i prepared a motion to request a business

[2:22:27] Voice 16: case for the official community plan review project and I'm also prepared to advance motion

[2:22:34] Voice 16: support a kid business case for the interests framework if it's a question of either or is

[2:22:41] Voice 16: what I'm coming down to like is there a particular reason that we could only advance one of these two

[2:22:49] Voice 16: options so

[2:22:54] Voice 17: through the chair I think it's a matter of how much how much time we have

[2:22:59] Voice 17: through the regional planning team to work on projects for next year?

[2:23:03] Voice 17: What time is there to do that work?

[2:23:08] Voice 17: So that's, I think, a question that I would put back to and flag for the regional planning team in the approach is the order of operations with a new project

[2:23:21] Voice 17: And how that would roll out with a potential new project being undertaken and the interest framework pre-work happening at the same time.

[2:23:35] Voice 17: I think it's a, in the order of sort of sequence, it would make sense to have this pre-work, and we're calling it pre-work in a way so that there is the opportunity for some good work to happen that could feed into a future project.

[2:23:58] Voice 17: but to say I guess I don't have information on what that overall approach would be on the

[2:24:06] Voice 17: interest framework to say with some certainty how each project that could be ongoing feeds into that

[2:24:16] Voice 17: so how they sequence together I don't I don't have that information at this time

[2:24:21] Voice 17: so

[2:24:22] Voice 5: that's that's very tricky for us to consider advancing a project that we don't know what

[2:24:28] Voice 5: it entails i have some understanding basically but it's not clear and so that that makes it

[2:24:39] Voice 5: difficult for us to debate and discuss and um for the community to understand what would be

[2:24:45] Voice 5: happening now of course you know project charter and the scope would be brought back

[2:24:49] Voice 5: um it's

[2:24:54] Voice 8: you know i we did pardon me chair we

[2:25:04] Voice 5: didn't have a minor project and i had suggested

[2:25:07] Voice 5: could we start doing free work engaging with the nations which we know we need to do

[2:25:15] Voice 5: and understanding what their um you know what parts of the ocp might they be interested in

[2:25:22] Voice 5: um contributing their thoughts and perspectives to rather than waiting until the ocp review is

[2:25:32] Voice 5: started and then doing that pre-engagement work so i had asked if that could be a minor project

[2:25:37] Voice 5: and i was told no that is we can't do a minor project that is attached to a major project

[2:25:44] Voice 5: they're not treated as two separate things so now we're in this it feels like we're forever

[2:25:49] Voice 5: in the sequencing issue of what comes first um i totally understand and respect that the

[2:25:58] Voice 5: interests of the nation will be advanced when they are ready to share and we need to still

[2:26:06] Voice 5: develop relationship to do that but to ask everything to wait until this you know a very

[2:26:14] Voice 5: very undefined period of engagement, uh, happens is, is really testing the, the patients of this

[2:26:22] Voice 5: community. We haven't seen, we haven't seen any work done and I, and I hear the frustration and

[2:26:29] Voice 5: I hear, um, this, the way we've gone about this process has not been, um, has not led to trust

[2:26:41] Voice 5: in the process. And I appreciate that we started with a small project, changed our internal

[2:26:51] Voice 5: processes, and then it went to a major project and then was dropped. I understand all that

[2:26:56] Voice 5: from being on executive and being in regional planning and being on five LTCs. I get the

[2:27:05] Voice 5: complexity of it but um we need to rethink this whole approach this isn't fair to the community

[2:27:21] Voice 5: so and it's doing damage to our intent and our good will to build good relationships with first

[2:27:30] Voice 5: nations and do that in a good way so i don't know what to say other than i'm disappointed

[2:27:38] Voice 5: appointed this was exactly what i had suggested a year ago was to start this pre-engagement work

[2:27:44] Voice 5: with with nations and i was told that it couldn't happen so those are my reflections on this process

[2:27:51] Voice 5: i'm sorry we can't take questions from the floor i see you but this well we're debating it with

[2:27:58] Voice 5: stuff i'm going to go to rpm general

[2:28:00] Voice 5: and then others can speak so

[2:28:05] Voice 17: the to help clarify this

[2:28:07] Voice 17: This pre-work on an interest framework would be through the regional planning team.

[2:28:14] Voice 17: So it would be a trust-wide type initiative, whereas when we were talking, I think there

[2:28:23] Voice 17: was previous discussion about what work can be happening before this Liskiti official

[2:28:30] Voice 17: community plan project, it was in the context of a minor project just for Liskiti.

[2:28:35] Voice 17: So, I just wanted to clarify that. I do understand the frustration of having to share that, you know, in considering some of the challenges in being able to start this OCP project and recognizing that it has been ongoing.

[2:28:59] Voice 17: going and that's the scope and and what's been desired for the project has changed over time

[2:29:04] Voice 17: and the way we are approaching how we work has changed as well over the last couple years so

[2:29:14] Voice 17: I'm recognizing those challenges as well and the frustration well

[2:29:19] Voice 5: I just want to go back to what

[2:29:20] Voice 5: you just said at the start of that your remarks that the interest framework is to serve the whole

[2:29:28] Voice 5: trust area so why are we advancing a project through the Liskiti local trust committee

[2:29:36] Voice 5: when this is actually you know it's a planning and it's a trust area services project that's

[2:29:42] Voice 5: you know shouldn't that be advanced through trust council through the indigenous relations

[2:29:49] Voice 5: action plan I'm not

[2:29:51] Voice 5: sure why you're saying this is a Liskiti project then oh

[2:29:55] Voice 17: to clarify I'm not

[2:29:56] Voice 17: not saying this is a Least Giddy project. What I was suggesting

[2:30:00] Voice 17: as this as being a new approach is support to undertake this as pre-work that would inform

[2:30:07] Voice 17: where applicable that would inform pre-work for the Liskety OCP project so

[2:30:15] Voice 5: could the Liskety

[2:30:16] Voice 5: local trust committee not recommend to trust council that it undertakes an interest framework

[2:30:21] Voice 5: with first nations for all local trust areas that are considering OCPs which means all first

[2:30:30] Voice 5: conversations in the whole trust area um like i

[2:30:38] Voice 17: think through the chair if i may i think what it

[2:30:40] Voice 17: sounds like is there's not enough information on this new approach and the ltc is is not favorable

[2:30:48] Voice 17: at this time to exploring that i'm

[2:30:51] Voice 5: favorable to it i just don't see how it's a low skeedy local

[2:30:54] Voice 5: trust committee project and i don't favor sequencing this before any further work on the

[2:31:00] Voice 5: ocp because we've already delayed quite a long time due to other considerations and so i see

[2:31:08] Voice 5: you trustee peterson go ahead yeah

[2:31:11] Voice 16: i mean you asked a question i was going to ask because as

[2:31:14] Voice 16: the rpm was talking it became a little bit more clear i was going to ask if if the work on the

[2:31:20] Voice 16: interest framework is contingent upon local trust committee support it doesn't sound like it um

[2:31:27] Voice 16: And if it's not, then if we were to pass a resolution supporting the business case for work on the interest framework, then that shouldn't directly affect whether we advance a motion to do the work on the official community plan review.

[2:31:46] Voice 16: you um that's why i was asking if it was either or uh because i'm you know if this is a trust

[2:31:55] Voice 16: council wide project then great we can say yes we support it or we can say no we don't support it

[2:32:01] Voice 16: but it's not a local trust committee project so ultimately it's not up to this committee to

[2:32:06] Voice 16: advance or not advance it what i think i'm hearing so given that that's the case i have a motion that

[2:32:14] Voice 16: i would like to bring when the chair is ready around

[2:32:16] Voice 16: the business case for the lusky the island

[2:32:18] Voice 16: official community plan review project i'd

[2:32:21] Voice 5: like us to have a little more discussion before you

[2:32:23] Voice 5: bring the motion please um trustee roni do you have any thoughts on the because before we bring

[2:32:34] Voice 5: any motion about directing money or work i'd like to actually discuss what's in scope for a future

[2:32:41] Voice 5: OCP project which is actually we should go to a future projects list and talk about what have we

[2:32:50] Voice 5: heard from this community in the last four years and make sure that what is on included in that

[2:32:57] Voice 5: future OCP project for which yes I agree there should be a business case asked but is everything

[2:33:06] Voice 5: in there that we want to see in there and really understanding how engagement with the First

[2:33:13] Voice 5: Nations in the Leskedia local trust area is to happen in the context of that project that's what

[2:33:19] Voice 5: I really need to understand before we advance any business cases because the money it matters what

[2:33:31] Voice 5: we spend money on we need to be clear on what the project is if it doesn't include engagement

[2:33:39] Voice 5: with First Nations and that's something that's going to be taken care of in trust services

[2:33:47] Voice 5: to then inform the OCP review then that changes the business case. Trustee Peterson?

[2:33:55] Voice 16: Yeah I mean

[2:33:56] Voice 16: I'd be happy to hear if staff have any answers to your questions otherwise I have a couple moments.

[2:34:05] Voice 17: So can you phrase can you phrase that again if I'm understanding what you're asking is to ask

[2:34:11] Voice 17: the ltc to review the items listed for the major project whether they're ocp and lub what are land

[2:34:19] Voice 17: use bylaw and ocp to make sure that it captures the items and also the um what the ltc desires

[2:34:30] Voice 17: for engagement with nations or work with nations at

[2:34:34] Voice 5: this point we are not directing that the the

[2:34:39] Voice 5: The Indigenous Relations Action Plan much more clearly situates the work as trust council wide and how those responsibilities are carried out.

[2:34:48] Voice 5: I think we're still, this is evolving, we are still to see.

[2:34:52] Voice 5: So I'm not clear on whether engagement with nations is part of an LTC OCP review project, or that is part of ongoing work that trust council is directing.

[2:35:06] Voice 5: contracting, and whether the business case includes that. Because to me, this interest

[2:35:12] Voice 5: framework that you've put forward is a separate project, and I still am hearing that it's not just

[2:35:19] Voice 5: through the local trust committee, Liskiti local trust committee, this is trust-wide. So I think,

[2:35:28] Voice 5: yeah, my questions are scope of work for the OCP review, is there anything additional,

[2:35:33] Voice 5: and is engagement with First Nations included

[2:35:36] Voice 5: or is that a separate project?

[2:35:39] Voice 17: So to the first part of your question

[2:35:42] Voice 17: about the interest framework,

[2:35:44] Voice 17: that would, the idea would be for trust-wide.

[2:35:49] Voice 17: So that part, I believe your understanding is correct

[2:35:52] Voice 17: and that we don't have that approach fully framed up yet

[2:35:58] Voice 17: and that would go back to trust council.

[2:36:01] Voice 17: The second part of your question

[2:36:03] Voice 17: is regarding the official community plan project work um there i think as as our processes currently

[2:36:14] Voice 17: exist we do have to um share with nations and send out referrals to nations for official community

[2:36:24] Voice 17: plan bylaws so that has to happen so yeah that part

[2:36:28] Voice 17: of the process um and in doing good work

[2:36:31] Voice 17: in that way. And it makes sense to have some kind of engagement, have some kind of

[2:36:41] Voice 17: more than just a referral to a nation, have some kind of conversation. So I think the timing of

[2:36:49] Voice 17: the interest framework and what that means for all of our projects that require referral from

[2:36:55] Voice 17: nations, I think is something to put back to the regional planning team to think about further

[2:37:02] Voice 17: as they undertake that work. And what it's signaling to me is that there's some bigger

[2:37:10] Voice 17: questions about that consideration of work for the framework. So it was simply an idea to see

[2:37:21] Voice 17: see if there was interest. It sounds like maybe it's a bit too early to bring that forward at

[2:37:27] Voice 17: this time. I

[2:37:29] Voice 5: think the question, yeah, it's supporting a business case that, you know,

[2:37:34] Voice 5: the Leskeetit Local Dress Committee, we can say, yes, this work is important because

[2:37:37] Voice 5: when we get into our OCP project, it would be good to hear from, you know, Sla'amen. They are

[2:37:46] Voice 5: interested in this area and giving comment on one particular area not all

[2:37:51] Voice 5: the whole thing and this nation so I get that this is critical to future OCP

[2:37:58] Voice 5: projects what I'm struggling with is the direction of the local trust committee I

[2:38:04] Voice 5: would say this is maybe a recommendation that regional planning team or trust

[2:38:10] Voice 5: trust area services works or a request that there is work done on an interest

[2:38:16] Voice 5: framework with First Nations. Yeah.

[2:38:20] Voice 5: I just struggling with the direction. Where does that go?

[2:38:25] Voice 5: It has to go to trust council to, to approve that.

[2:38:30] Voice 5: To

[2:38:30] Voice 17: clarify the reports,

[2:38:33] Voice 17: it's not requesting direction to ask trust council or the regional planning

[2:38:39] Voice 17: team to do that work. It's framed as support for that to undertake. So perhaps, well, that's not

[2:38:54] Voice 17: the recommendation, I think, in, sorry, I'm going to pause for a moment here. I think this needs to

[2:39:03] Voice 17: be thought out through more. That's, I think, from this discussion, I think that's what this

[2:39:09] Voice 17: sounds like so because I'm not prepared at this time to delve more into this idea because I don't

[2:39:16] Voice 17: have more information I think the intent of it was if you're interested understanding the current

[2:39:24] Voice 17: issues and constraints with the OCP major project and where it currently sits if you were if the

[2:39:30] Voice 17: LTC was interested in supporting whatever work that could be undertaken next fiscal that could

[2:39:37] Voice 17: could benefit a project that you would take on in future years.

[2:39:41] Voice 17: I

[2:39:42] Voice 5: get the intent of your recommended promotion and I do support it.

[2:39:47] Voice 5: What I struggle with is because we're an administration that, you know,

[2:39:51] Voice 5: we allocate one major project, you're allowed to do one of this.

[2:39:55] Voice 5: If this becomes Laskini local trust committees request or project,

[2:40:01] Voice 5: you know, we get into eliminating other projects.

[2:40:04] Voice 5: So that was back to trustee Peterson's question.

[2:40:06] Voice 5: Is this an either or, or a sequencing? And if it's a sequencing, and it's part of the OCP review, then it should be scoped into the OCP review. If it's a request to Trust Council to do this work for all of Trust Council, that goes through a different mechanism. Of course, it's going to inform our OCP review. But because we've administratively parsed things up like that, I don't want this to become a project that eliminates the OCP review. So sorry.

[2:40:35] Voice 5: My

[2:40:35] Voice 17: understanding is that it wouldn't, that by saying yes to this pre-work, it would not be an either or.

[2:40:45] Voice 17: So if this interest framework was undertaken, if it was decided to be undertaken by Trust Council, it would be trust-wide.

[2:40:54] Voice 17: So LISGETI, LTC may say, sure, we support the work happening, but we also want to put in a business case for our OCP project as well.

[2:41:04] Voice 17: Thank

[2:41:05] Voice 5: you. You asked the question in the simplest way. And then I had to like, we went on a big round robin, but we got there. Thank you, RPM Debra. Are we all understanding?

[2:41:18] Voice 16: Better now.

[2:41:18] Voice 16: We

[2:41:19] Voice 5: had to have a good discussion here. All right. I do support a business case because this work needs to get done. So as long as it doesn't, you know, preclude, exclude OCP project.

[2:41:32] Voice 5: Yeah, and

[2:41:33] Voice 16: I think part of the problem that I'm seeing in the way that this is coming to us is that, you know, it reads Laskiniana Local Trust Committee supportive business case for work on, but we don't have a business case to look at, and it won't be work of the Local Trust Committee.

[2:41:56] Voice 16: So I think the RPM is right.

[2:41:58] Voice 16: This is not, it's not ready to,

[2:42:02] Voice 16: I don't think this piece is ready to come

[2:42:04] Voice 16: to the local trust committee today.

[2:42:05] Voice 5: The need is here.

[2:42:06] Voice 5: We couldn't say-

[2:42:07] Voice 16: If you would let me finish,

[2:42:08] Voice 5: I

[2:42:10] Voice 16: support the notion,

[2:42:12] Voice 16: but in fact, the way that it's written

[2:42:16] Voice 16: is actually problematic.

[2:42:19] Voice 16: Yeah.

[2:42:20] Voice 16: Anyway, so there's two pieces here.

[2:42:23] Voice 16: We're good to know that it's not going to preclude work on the Laskiti OCP project because that's the priority as far as I'm concerned.

[2:42:35] Voice 16: So I just wonder, the RPM on the interest framework piece can maybe support preparation of a business case or something like that?

[2:42:48] Voice 16: Because it sounds like we're supporting a business case that we don't see.

[2:42:51] Voice 16: Whereas the other one, when we ask for business cases, we request staff to prepare them.

[2:42:58] Voice 17: So just to clarify, what I may suggest is this is good conversation about interest framework support.

[2:43:09] Voice 17: And with that in mind, I wouldn't suggest a resolution be needed because it's not the LTC approving that business case for that framework.

[2:43:19] Voice 11: Great.

[2:43:20] Voice 11: instead focus

[2:43:21] Voice 17: on the what you would like to work on or or action for your official community plan

[2:43:27] Voice 17: project so

[2:43:28] Voice 5: so before we move to your motion on a business case and thank you for um hearing us

[2:43:34] Voice 5: rpm general i think you know this is an evolving process and that we're all trying to figure out

[2:43:40] Voice 5: the best way of doing it so this has been really helpful so before we move to a business case i

[2:43:45] Voice 5: I agree the OCP, in some form, needs to advance.

[2:43:49] Voice 5: Let's go to the future projects list,

[2:43:51] Voice 5: if you don't mind, page 54 of our original agenda.

[2:43:58] Voice 5: Because these are the items that there's a list of items

[2:44:06] Voice 5: that we've kind of added from August 20, 2022

[2:44:10] Voice 5: 2022 through more recently we've had some well we approved phase one to begin

[2:44:21] Voice 5: and so there's just

[2:44:25] Voice 8: so

[2:44:38] Voice 17: through the chair what we don't have is attached to this project report

[2:44:43] Voice 17: is the project charter for the OCP project so that would but I do have it up dated October 6,

[2:44:53] Voice 17: 2025 I can capture for you verbally what it does include as part of its scope work

[2:45:03] Voice 17: if that's helpful in in also looking at this future projects list that

[2:45:07] Voice 5: would be great

[2:45:08] Voice 5: sorry what was the date again I just want to know

[2:45:13] Voice 17: October 6 2025 for the OCP review project

[2:45:17] Voice 17: project charter. So in pulling together the work that has occurred from 2018 to now,

[2:45:26] Voice 17: part of the objectives were to include a new OCP vision statement, undertake community engagement

[2:45:34] Voice 17: in phase one, which was complete, incorporate results of the 2018 engagement sessions held by

[2:45:41] Voice 17: the Liskety Community Association, which was complete, determine changes to policy and

[2:45:46] Voice 17: regulations consistent with First Nation relations and perspectives that's to still occur

[2:45:52] Voice 17: including and also including the Local Government Act, Islands Trust Object and Act and Policy

[2:45:58] Voice 17: Statement so those things still need to happen and to conduct a technical analysis of the OCP

[2:46:03] Voice 17: on the topics identified in scope then that's to happen. What is in scope so that's work to still

[2:46:11] Voice 17: be done is identifying opportunities for intergovernmental collaboration, respecting

[2:46:16] Voice 17: treaty nations, treaty and First Nations rights through the OCP review, update the OCP engagement

[2:46:24] Voice 17: strategy to prioritize topics and process, which will include the creation of a new OCP vision

[2:46:31] Voice 17: statement, a targeted technical analysis of the OCP, an APC referral for private docks

[2:46:40] Voice 17: and their use, defining environmental and social effects and how they should be addressed

[2:46:46] Voice 17: as it relates to specifically provision 4.4.7 of boats and maritime vessels, incorporating

[2:46:55] Voice 17: comments heard from First Nations to incorporate into the proposed policies, and finally drafting

[2:47:03] Voice 17: the OCP policies to support land for community use, environmental and social effects on private

[2:47:09] Voice 17: docks, and the amending bylaws for that work. Right. Okay.

[2:47:19] Voice 5: Sounds like we've added a lot to

[2:47:22] Voice 5: that list um one of the thingy trustees was um a direct similar direction we gave at maine ltc was

[2:47:35] Voice 5: that trustees could work with staff to um bring forward in the next month or two any topics of um

[2:47:47] Voice 5: you know or clarify any topics really just let staff know what's on the community's mind and

[2:47:53] Voice 5: make sure that that's in scope in the OCP proposed OCP review and I would like to get back from staff

[2:48:01] Voice 5: well I think for the next term would be helpful is more of the fleshed out interest framework and

[2:48:08] Voice 5: how the relationship building and pre-engagement with nations it's sort of our new with with

[2:48:19] Voice 5: respect to the Indigenous Relations Plan, what would that look like? How would that work? And

[2:48:25] Voice 5: then that way we have information from the administration about here's a clear process,

[2:48:31] Voice 5: here's how it's going, how we're going to proceed engaging with nations and the community will

[2:48:38] Voice 5: understand what that process looks like, which I think is what we're hearing is missing. Folks

[2:48:42] Voice 5: don't understand what's happening and the process has been changing which hasn't led to trust in

[2:48:50] Voice 5: Our processes. So I think if staff and our administration can come back with a clear plan for engagement and where that money is, you know, is that funded from trust council budget for the local trust committee budget?

[2:49:05] Voice 5: Is that part of the OCP project? Is it separate? And then trustees will have information from their community looking at the, you know, the previous charters.

[2:49:19] Voice 5: and and the subdivision questions and the feral sheep like all the things make sure that we have

[2:49:26] Voice 5: the list of topics that could be covered and then we can do a business case we can direct that a

[2:49:32] Voice 5: business case be done but i think we need that information first sorry for the long does that

[2:49:38] Voice 5: make sense okay so

[2:49:41] Voice 16: what i look at is all of these things have been discussed through some of them

[2:49:48] Voice 16: for a couple of terms all of the items that are on on the list here um when we were uh when we

[2:49:58] Voice 16: approved the additional major business project business case in 2024 we approved it with all

[2:50:05] Voice 16: of these items on it i am not aware of any pressing issues in the community that are

[2:50:09] Voice 16: not captured in this um i haven't heard anything i mean there's one that i i think we need to look

[2:50:17] Voice 16: at in our land use bylaw but that's not ocp so i haven't brought it up yet um what

[2:50:24] Voice 5: about wildfire

[2:50:25] Voice 5: interface or some of the work that they could that regional district's doing have we looked at

[2:50:29] Voice 5: it through the lens of um you know emergency it's just

[2:50:33] Voice 16: it's the center lane though yeah

[2:50:39] Voice 16: I mean, like our OCP project work at this point, if I don't hear any groundswell from the community,

[2:50:53] Voice 16: issue X isn't on the project charter and it's really important.

[2:50:57] Voice 16: We need you to do this.

[2:50:59] Voice 7: Like

[2:51:00] Voice 16: we have a big list.

[2:51:02] Voice 16: I haven't heard anything that's like, oh, you know what?

[2:51:04] Voice 16: This is critically missing from the OCP review project.

[2:51:07] Voice 5: That's

[2:51:08] Voice 16: what I haven't heard.

[2:51:08] Voice 16: I

[2:51:09] Voice 5: subdivision is an issue I think that would naturally be included this is something we've

[2:51:15] Voice 5: been discussing as a land use bylaw amendment so you know that makes sense to add it to the scope

[2:51:22] Voice 7: um

[2:51:23] Voice 5: and uh emergency planning and working with other coordination with other agencies

[2:51:30] Voice 5: always needs to be updated oh of course

[2:51:32] Voice 5: like that's a and it's something we're seeing

[2:51:35] Voice 5: in the Gabriel OCP review planners have very very specifically set out what is in our jurisdiction

[2:51:45] Voice 5: to create regulations on and policies on and then everything else that has quite often been

[2:51:51] Voice 5: lumped into an OCP as advocacy as we need to do this is in a totally different section and it

[2:51:57] Voice 5: lays out how we are to work with others so it's actually a very good example with Gabriel I'm just

[2:52:03] Voice 5: putting it out there it's it's out for public comment now um but that kind of thing the

[2:52:09] Voice 5: coordination but yeah so but if you don't see if there's any need to add or well think

[2:52:18] Voice 5: about it i

[2:52:18] Voice 16: mean if i if i could i think my understanding from staff is that there's not going to be

[2:52:27] Voice 16: or the chances of any work getting done on this project this fiscal so before april is slim to

[2:52:35] Voice 16: none so i think there's still opportunity if the new local trust committee hears a groundswell from

[2:52:43] Voice 16: the public hey you know you really missed the boat you should really put this in your in your

[2:52:46] Voice 16: ocp project i think there's still time to adjust the project charter that's where i'm at today

[2:52:52] Voice 7: I

[2:52:52] Voice 16: don't I frankly there's nothing on here that I think we need to get rid of but I also haven't

[2:52:59] Voice 16: been hearing over the last several years you guys really missed something here this really

[2:53:05] Voice 16: needs to be in there but there is still time between when this work will actually get undertaken

[2:53:12] Voice 16: by the regional planning team so if something comes up if you know anyone in this room or

[2:53:19] Voice 16: anyone else in the community i think there's still opportunity to put something in if it

[2:53:23] Voice 16: has to if it's urgent it needs to be dealt with okay yeah that's

[2:53:27] Voice 5: where i'm at my my point was to

[2:53:29] Voice 5: actually clean up the future projects list so the future

[2:53:32] Voice 16: project is all one list it's all for the

[2:53:35] Voice 16: that project

[2:53:39] Voice 5: yes and uh there are some things such as reconciliation relationship building with

[2:53:46] Voice 5: nations we just want to make sure that as we're going forward the list of what the next ltc has

[2:53:53] Voice 5: to consider is um as clear as possible from from this ltc's knowledge that's but i think we're not

[2:54:03] Voice 5: talking about the same thing so let's

[2:54:04] Voice 19: just leave it let's just leave it um

[2:54:09] Voice 8: chair

[2:54:10] Voice 17: if i may please

[2:54:12] Voice 17: Please,

[2:54:12] Voice 8: help us out.

[2:54:13] Voice 17: So just to confirm Trustee Pearson's understanding, yes, what is in the scope is the current scope right now.

[2:54:23] Voice 17: The intent and the plan is for the regional planning team to come back to the LTC with a project charter to make sure that that's correct.

[2:54:33] Voice 17: So that would be the time if there were anything else added to that project charter.

[2:54:38] Voice 17: the regional planning team would consider that or the planner assigned for your project through

[2:54:44] Voice 17: the regional planning team would look at that with you with the LTC for comment. So that is

[2:54:50] Voice 17: the opportunity. It will be coming back to the local trust committee and the community does have

[2:54:56] Voice 17: that opportunity. So I just wanted to confirm and clarify that. I think, Dr. Peterson, you had

[2:55:04] Voice 17: add maybe another question about um the project itself and how it was rolling out i just lost

[2:55:11] Voice 17: no

[2:55:12] Voice 16: not not a question just that i i mean i don't have any expectation that the regional planning

[2:55:18] Voice 16: team is going to start this work this fiscal that's what i keep hearing

[2:55:22] Voice 17: yeah unfortunately

[2:55:23] Voice 17: that that's correct it doesn't my update doesn't i don't anticipate that changing

[2:55:29] Voice 17: right

[2:55:30] Voice 16: and so my point was is that there's still a bit of runway for the new local trust

[2:55:34] Voice 16: trust committee the new local trust committee hears from the community Jesus should really be

[2:55:40] Voice 16: part of your OCP project there's still time and space for the project Charter which will come to

[2:55:47] Voice 16: them to be amended or added to or God forbid reduced um this is not our final this is not

[2:55:54] Voice 16: the final no kick

[2:55:56] Voice 16: at the can here today that's what I'm saying I haven't seen anything I haven't

[2:56:00] Voice 16: anything is drastically missing i haven't heard you know we really got to ditch that part of it

[2:56:05] Voice 5: yeah i'm

[2:56:06] Voice 16: saying i'm good with the status quo of what we've got today that's

[2:56:10] Voice 5: good it's going to

[2:56:11] Voice 16: the next ltc they will make their determinations yeah

[2:56:14] Voice 5: i think i was more focused on the future

[2:56:18] Voice 5: projects list just because they become kind of a dumping ground of all the things we thought but

[2:56:24] Voice 5: But then things change.

[2:56:26] Voice 5: And so, you know, if none of us are here and, you know, we have a changeover of staff, that list is as clear as possible for people coming in.

[2:56:36] Voice 5: They don't go, oh, why are we talking about, why is that there?

[2:56:39] Voice 5: That's all.

[2:56:40] Voice 5: So I think I'm letting that go.

[2:56:43] Voice 5: And,

[2:56:44] Voice 17: Chair, if I may, when we get to 14.2 on the agenda, which is the future project list, we can maybe, yeah, maybe touch base on that with the LTC further.

[2:56:55] Voice 17: So just going back to the go

[2:56:58] Voice 5: back to the project.

[2:57:01] Voice 5: So I would like to request that staff come back with like this.

[2:57:07] Voice 5: This is my thought for a motion. Actually, we'd asked for this earlier.

[2:57:13] Voice 5: Sort of a briefing on sorry, I'm looking for an email just came in.

[2:57:20] Voice 5: we were looking for a resolution that staff would provide information to the Luskedia and

[2:57:25] Voice 5: local trust committee about uh trust council's coordination agreements process and I think

[2:57:31] Voice 5: what I'm looking for in this interest framework is that staff can staff come back also with

[2:57:38] Voice 5: um how how we imagine um the interest framework that would inform an ocp review

[2:57:49] Voice 5: you know what does that process look like for the liskiti local trust committee

[2:57:55] Voice 5: so could could i potentially ask staff to come back with that kind of information and that might

[2:58:00] Voice 5: be in february for the new local trust committee to to understand yeah

[2:58:05] Voice 17: um so my

[2:58:07] Voice 17: I think in understanding the ask, I think that this interest framework to be initiated as a project would come through to the trust, to trust council.

[2:58:25] Voice 17: So that may be the best place to bring forward for trustees to bring forward their questions for discussion to make sure that project includes, you know, how will this feed into our OCP projects, help us understand how this relates to protocol agreements, all of these kind of questions that were brought up today that could relate to this, to this, this approach, this new, this potential new project.

[2:58:56] Voice 17: So it hasn't been determined yet is also what I want to reiterate. So receiving a direction through the local trust committee, I don't believe is the best, most appropriate place. I think up at the level of trust council would be, I think, a good spot in how you as the LISC-ED trustees can actually provide your feedback for that project, should it make its way as a project.

[2:59:22] Voice 17: So I think putting a resolution forward to the LTC, through the LTC to the regional planning team in this way, I think maybe isn't the best approach, but it can be done, I think, properly through the Trust Committee, the Trust Council.

[2:59:41] Voice 17: Sorry,

[2:59:43] Voice 5: pardon me, RPM, but this is work that already is directed by Trust Council.

[2:59:47] Voice 5: We approved the operation or the work plan for the referral process with First Nation, which is happening through the regional planning team.

[2:59:57] Voice 5: So Trust Council gave that direction.

[3:00:00] Voice 5: approved that plan that we saw in June as part of the IRAP Indigenous Relations Action Plan

[3:00:06] Voice 5: and that specifies how referral processes happen and that our communication with the public about

[3:00:14] Voice 5: those changes or any like we have asked for that communication to be part of the package so

[3:00:22] Voice 5: what I'm requesting is that staff come back with a plan for what does that look like

[3:00:29] Voice 5: in a way that can be understood by the Liskiti community

[3:00:34] Voice 5: and the new Liskiti Local Trust Committee,

[3:00:36] Voice 5: the work that was already directed by Trust Council

[3:00:38] Voice 5: for this is how we do OCP reviews.

[3:00:41] Voice 5: Here's how the referral process is going to look like.

[3:00:44] Voice 5: Here's what pre-engagement looks like.

[3:00:46] Voice 5: This is the communication that we are asking for

[3:00:50] Voice 5: on behalf of the Liskiti community

[3:00:53] Voice 5: that is already approved in our Trust Council work plan.

[3:00:56] Voice 5: We just need to understand it before the new local trust committee engages in a process for its OCP review.

[3:01:06] Voice 5: So I think it's really appropriate for the Liskety local trust committee to ask for that kind of educational material.

[3:01:14] Voice 5: Am I off base here?

[3:01:19] Voice 16: I mean what I've been hearing the regional planning manager say a couple of times is that

[3:01:27] Voice 16: this is going to be trust-wide this is going to be trust council and notwithstanding you know

[3:01:35] Voice 16: the recommendation that came in this agenda package that there's work to be done at the

[3:01:41] Voice 16: trust council level before it really is in the purview of local trust committees like to direct

[3:01:49] Voice 16: work i mean because it's trust council work that has to happen first that's what i'm hearing yeah

[3:01:55] Voice 7: and

[3:01:55] Voice 16: then so for a local trust committee to sort of nudge or push in the process i don't think is

[3:02:02] Voice 16: doesn't seem appropriate to me at this

[3:02:04] Voice 5: point the local trust committee can ask for something on

[3:02:07] Voice 5: behalf of its community and make a

[3:02:08] Voice 5: recommendation to trust council hey before we engage in our ocp

[3:02:13] Voice 5: review we'd like to see a plan for how engagement for the engagement process with with nations is

[3:02:20] Voice 5: going to take place like that's what the people have been asking for what's how what does the

[3:02:27] Voice 5: process look like um and i think the confusion over this interest framework being presented

[3:02:32] Voice 5: without um this is essentially what you asked us in your recommendation uh rpm generat is the

[3:02:42] Voice 5: luskiti local trust committee interested in seeing that interest framework fleshed out before we do

[3:02:48] Voice 5: yes i think we are interested so we're not asking for a business case we don't want money to be

[3:02:54] Voice 5: spent but we would like to understand we'd like to support that interest framework and how is that

[3:02:59] Voice 5: going to look yes all

[3:03:02] Voice 16: right please tell me

[3:03:05] Voice 5: you landed on our

[3:03:06] Voice 16: resolution something oh my gosh

[3:03:09] Voice 16: from the alternatives thank you uh

[3:03:12] Voice 16: and that would be to request further information

[3:03:19] Voice 16: that makes sense i think us the local trust committee requesting further information from

[3:03:24] Voice 16: staff on the interest framework and how that intersects with the official community plan

[3:03:32] Voice 16: project i think that's totally within our lane you

[3:03:36] Voice 5: can do that and i'll do something else okay well

[3:03:39] Voice 16: if you've got something else i'm going to leave it to you because

[3:03:52] Voice 8: your

[3:03:52] Voice 19: motion first um yeah so my motion

[3:03:58] Voice 16: would be that the lusketeer item of local trust committee

[3:04:02] Voice 16: request the following uh request further information on an interest framework with

[3:04:19] Voice 16: first nations in the liskiti local trust area information

[3:04:29] Voice 5: on

[3:04:33] Voice 16: an interest framework with first

[3:04:35] Voice 16: nations in the liskiti local trust area so it's kind of patching together recommendation one and

[3:04:41] Voice 16: alternative too yeah

[3:04:43] Voice 5: and yeah just to hold on that for a second and thank you for the motion

[3:04:50] Voice 5: something that what i was thinking and it might be additional is to recommend a trust council

[3:04:56] Voice 5: that an interest framework with first nations in the luskevee local trust area

[3:05:00] Voice 5: be developed and communication and information along with it basically asking for that information

[3:05:08] Voice 5: don't trust council but then it would go on a trust council agenda i'm like not sure

[3:05:13] Voice 16: well and then the only problem i have with that is that's asking trust council to

[3:05:17] Voice 16: do work that's specific to the luskete local trust area which i don't think is the right approach no

[3:05:22] Voice 3: but a recommendation it would be a recommendation like hey sure

[3:05:26] Voice 16: but no what i'm trying to say is if

[3:05:28] Voice 16: it wasn't identifying an ltc i could be totally supported because it is trust-wide work okay

[3:05:40] Voice 7: Okay.

[3:05:46] Voice 5: I just think the intent of that first recommendation by staff was to get that yes, we support creating an interest framework, like, to whomever, I just don't know what the direction is to.

[3:06:01] Voice 5: yeah

[3:06:01] Voice 16: i mean to be honest i feel like it's not like i feel like

[3:06:08] Voice 7: what

[3:06:09] Voice 16: we've heard from staff

[3:06:10] Voice 16: is it's not fully developed and so i don't know what we're recommending other than that

[3:06:16] Voice 16: eventually we get some information so i mean i'm fine not bringing any recommendations that

[3:06:23] Voice 16: relate to the interest framework because i don't see any downside to that if this trust

[3:06:28] Voice 16: council work it'll happen regardless lo any local trust committee members will be part of press

[3:06:34] Voice 16: council i

[3:06:37] Voice 5: think your motion's good that the requesting you know information on what that

[3:06:43] Voice 5: interest framework would look like and what communication to the public

[3:06:47] Voice 5: would look like for the next liskety local trust committee i think that's that's great because this

[3:06:53] Voice 5: will be specific to the liskety local trust committee and you're just asking staff for the

[3:06:57] Voice 5: information of well what was you know here's your motion here's your intended direction

[3:07:03] Voice 5: we need to know more about what that is that

[3:07:05] Voice 16: was my attempt to stay within our lane

[3:07:08] Voice 5: okay well then you want to lisa do you have that motion and could you read it back to us yes chair

[3:07:21] Voice 13: elliott what i have is that the liskiti island local trust committee requests further information

[3:07:27] Voice 13: on an interest framework with first nations in the liskiti local trust area i

[3:07:36] Voice 5: would like to

[3:07:37] Voice 5: add and communication materials for that purpose sure

[3:07:44] Voice 7: like

[3:07:45] Voice 5: what would that look like as a plain

[3:07:48] Voice 5: language communication materials i

[3:07:52] Voice 16: wouldn't want to get too prescriptive on that because we know

[3:07:55] Voice 16: that there's going to be trust counts work too so i'm fine with communicating communication

[3:08:00] Voice 16: materials that's fine

[3:08:03] Voice 5: okay yeah i mean even if it's not examples of communication materials but

[3:08:10] Voice 5: it be like you know this is there's going to be a one page summary of you know what is engagement

[3:08:16] Voice 5: with first nations look like like what are the actual um what do you call that yeah like what

[3:08:23] Voice 5: are we communicating to the public that there is a plan to communicate i

[3:08:27] Voice 16: know and i get that but i

[3:08:29] Voice 16: again i think that's straying into trust council work chair

[3:08:35] Voice 17: if i may yeah um i would suggest i

[3:08:40] Voice 17: I would like to suggest if there, it sounds like there's a desire for the LTC to know more about what this interest framework would look like for the LISC-ED to inform the LISC-ED OCP project in order to carry out that work.

[3:08:57] Voice 17: So if the resolution were to be framed as request information from staff about how the interest framework with nations would look like to inform the Liskiti OCP project work program,

[3:09:21] Voice 17: that in of itself is it's not prescriptive to say how the work is going to be carried out

[3:09:29] Voice 17: but it is recognizing that that work will be feeding into or informing it's the information

[3:09:40] Voice 17: you need to know for your project so whatever work would be happening through the interest

[3:09:45] Voice 17: framework project um you need to know that information can

[3:09:51] Voice 5: you repeat what you said uh

[3:09:53] Voice 5: one minute ago maybe lisa you captured it how the interest framework like what the interest

[3:09:59] Voice 5: framework with nations would look like and how it would inform the liskety island local trust

[3:10:05] Voice 5: committee ocp review project something like that i'll

[3:10:09] Voice 17: throw it in the um the comment portion of

[3:10:12] Voice 17: the meeting and I'll rephrase it now if that's helpful. That

[3:10:20] Voice 5: would be great.

[3:10:21] Voice 17: Request information

[3:10:22] Voice 17: from staff on the interest framework with First Nations and what that would look like for the

[3:10:31] Voice 17: LISKETI or and how that would inform the LISKETI OCP project work program.

[3:10:50] Voice 5: Okay, so that sounds like a really good motion. Can we replace Tim's

[3:10:59] Voice 8: committee?

[3:11:01] Voice 5: Yeah, request information from staff on what an Ambitrous Framework with First Nations

[3:11:08] Voice 5: would look like in order to inform the

[3:11:13] Voice 5: Mesquite Island Local Trust Committee's OCP project work program.

[3:11:19] Voice 5: Something like that.

[3:11:23] Voice 8: Who wants to make that motion?

[3:11:24] Voice 8: I

[3:11:28] Voice 12: don't have any of it for now.

[3:11:35] Voice 8: Well, I think it's pretty

[3:11:37] Voice 5: close to your original one.

[3:11:39] Voice 8: Why don't

[3:11:39] Voice 6: you please make a motion?

[3:11:42] Voice 6: It was a motion made a long time ago.

[3:11:44] Voice 6: yeah okay i

[3:11:52] Voice 5: move uh i that the luskedia and local trust committee request information

[3:11:59] Voice 5: from staff or was the following information what an interest framework with first nations

[3:12:06] Voice 5: uh would entail no it would look like it's a better word in order to inform the liskiti

[3:12:19] Voice 5: local trust committee's ocp project work program yeah

[3:12:27] Voice 4: yeah you moved you move it i move it okay

[3:12:32] Voice 4: seconder seconded

[3:12:36] Voice 5: on the motion the very unclear motion oh lisa got it that's important lisa are

[3:12:42] Voice 5: Are you confident on this, confident that we have this motion?

[3:12:47] Voice 13: I can read it back if you like.

[3:12:49] Voice 13: Please.

[3:12:52] Voice 13: That the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee request information from staff on what an interest framework with First Nations would look like in order to inform the Liskety Island Local Trust Committee Official Community Plan Work Project Program.

[3:13:08] Voice 5: Yes.

[3:13:09] Voice 5: Renee?

[3:13:09] Voice 5: Renee?

[3:13:11] Voice 17: Chair, just to maybe suggest some more specific wording, the LTC had discussed engagement.

[3:13:21] Voice 17: So would that be an aspect you would like to learn more about how this interest framework

[3:13:27] Voice 17: would inform engagement?

[3:13:30] Voice 5: I think let's keep that as a separate motion just so that, you know,

[3:13:35] Voice 5: we can at least get one of these dealt with okay um any more discussion on the motion okay all those

[3:13:44] Voice 5: in favor yeah

[3:13:45] Voice 16: discussion yes comment uh just i'm gonna support the motion but i actually think that

[3:13:51] Voice 16: the original motion just to request the information was perfectly sufficient yeah and

[3:13:56] Voice 16: uh i i dislike

[3:13:59] Voice 16: like when we perform these contortions on the fly

[3:14:02] Voice 5: noted

[3:14:05] Voice 16: thank

[3:14:06] Voice 5: you it's you're entirely correct

[3:14:11] Voice 5: um any further discussion all those in favor

[3:14:17] Voice 7: and

[3:14:19] Voice 5: any opposed that is carried

[3:14:22] Voice 5: Right. Okay. So the, my suggestion was that the LISC-EDA and local trust committee would

[3:14:35] Voice 5: request information on a communications plan or communications options for the public on

[3:14:45] Voice 5: the interest framework with First Nations process. Does anybody think that's of value?

[3:14:57] Voice 5: I don't need to make an option.

[3:15:00] Voice 5: I

[3:15:00] Voice 16: think that's the Trust Council Business Franchise.

[3:15:04] Voice 7: Okay.

[3:15:07] Voice 19: That

[3:15:09] Voice 17: would be my advice as well.

[3:15:11] Voice 17: And through this project work, the regional planning team,

[3:15:17] Voice 17: should this be selected as a project for next fiscal,

[3:15:20] Voice 17: the regional planning team would be preparing as part of the project scope

[3:15:24] Voice 17: and project charter, an engagement plan, a communications plan,

[3:15:29] Voice 17: that would be presented to the LTC to review all

[3:15:35] Voice 5: right back to the motion that you had proposed

[3:15:40] Voice 5: trustee peterson you want to make that i

[3:15:42] Voice 16: moved that the luskete island local trust could be

[3:15:45] Voice 16: request staff to prepare a business case for the luskete island official community plan review

[3:15:49] Voice 16: project and forward the business case to the relevant committees and trust council for the

[3:15:54] Voice 16: 2027 2028 budget 27

[3:15:58] Voice 5: 28. so a seconder on the motion second motion seconded discussion uh just

[3:16:10] Voice 16: it's been ongoing we've been waiting the capacity let's get the funding requested the local trust

[3:16:16] Voice 16: committee and the new one wants to change their buyer they can but if they don't then at least

[3:16:19] Voice 16: they've got funding requested uh

[3:16:24] Voice 7: i

[3:16:29] Voice 5: have a question about we already had budget allocated

[3:16:32] Voice 5: 26 27 uh i believe that was 18 000 and then it was carried forward this year can we not carry that

[3:16:43] Voice 5: forward to 27 28 no

[3:16:46] Voice 16: it doesn't it never carries forward what

[3:16:48] Voice 5: it

[3:16:49] Voice 16: doesn't carry forward it has to

[3:16:51] Voice 16: be approved and has to appear in the budget be approved that's the whole point i understand but

[3:16:57] Voice 5: you make a resubmission for the previous amount of funds that were taxed for that project but

[3:17:04] Voice 5: we're not used what

[3:17:05] Voice 16: i'm saying is if we don't request it then there's no business case request

[3:17:10] Voice 16: going to dress council that's the whole point of doing this this is to make sure we've put up our

[3:17:15] Voice 16: had and said fund our project.

[3:17:17] Voice 3: Ah, okay.

[3:17:19] Voice 3: RPF, Deborah.

[3:17:20] Voice 17: Yeah, that's correct.

[3:17:23] Voice 17: You will need to request a business case.

[3:17:25] Voice 17: And through that

[3:17:27] Voice 17: exercise, with

[3:17:29] Voice 17: this current project

[3:17:31] Voice 17: charter,

[3:17:33] Voice 17: staff will provide a

[3:17:35] Voice 17: budget estimate. That number might

[3:17:37] Voice 17: change, but this new business

[3:17:39] Voice 17: case resolution allows

[3:17:41] Voice 17: staff to do that.

[3:17:47] Voice 7: I'm glad.

[3:17:57] Voice 5: that it's going to move forward. So, any more discussion on the motion? All those in favor?

[3:18:04] Voice 5: That is carried. Thank you. So, any more work or discussion on the major project update?

[3:18:22] Voice 11: Yeah. I

[3:18:23] Voice 17: have one question, Chair, if I may.

[3:18:25] Voice 5: Yes, please go ahead.

[3:18:28] Voice 17: With that resolution,

[3:18:29] Voice 17: solution, I recognize that the current LTC may not see this business case come through. So I'll

[3:18:39] Voice 17: have a conversation, I'll need to have a conversation with the director in finance to

[3:18:46] Voice 17: understand the best way to present a business case so the LTC can see it before it goes ahead to

[3:18:54] Voice 17: budget for budget considerations just because of the timing of your LTC meetings and the next one

[3:19:01] Voice 17: being in November.

[3:19:05] Voice 16: Does it make sense to request staff look at scheduling a special meeting if

[3:19:14] Voice 16: that is required?

[3:19:17] Voice 17: I will explore that option as well as other options.

[3:19:23] Voice 16: But you don't need

[3:19:24] Voice 16: a resolution from us today it

[3:19:28] Voice 17: well your your your resolution has given direction or requested staff

[3:19:32] Voice 17: prepare the business case and present

[3:19:35] Voice 17: it um pardon me and for for trust council consideration

[3:19:40] Voice 17: so if that the trust if liskiti uh trust committee is comfortable with staff preparing that and

[3:19:49] Voice 17: sending it off to budget for budget we can do that you just won't have seen the final

[3:19:55] Voice 17: you'll see the draft version i'm just figuring out the best way to do that because normally

[3:20:00] Voice 17: we request approvals of business cases as they get sent on so it's a bit of an administration

[3:20:06] Voice 17: step i think

[3:20:08] Voice 17: that i'm going to have to work through

[3:20:09] Voice 5: yeah but the budget approval isn't

[3:20:11] Voice 5: coming i mean still early in the budget cycle so the business case can change or come back to the

[3:20:17] Voice 5: ltc for yeah i think we've seen drafts go ahead um before i'm i'm comfortable with

[3:20:25] Voice 5: you know we've seen the business case before um okay so anything else on that rpm general

[3:20:39] Voice 5: was that that's it

[3:20:41] Voice 5: includes that item okay thank you for to everybody for bearing with us in this

[3:20:54] Voice 5: So one item of no correspondence we have 12.1 and I'd like to add another item of new business

[3:21:02] Voice 5: after yours over to you Trustee Petersen funding for award yes

[3:21:09] Voice 16: pretty straightforward so let's

[3:21:13] Voice 16: resident Sheila Harrington has been

[3:21:16] Voice 16: the recipient of the Community Stewardship Awards.

[3:21:21] Voice 16: I talked to Director of Trust Area Services

[3:21:25] Voice 16: and the resolution I will propose approves funding

[3:21:29] Voice 16: for an on-island celebration event. Date to be determined

[3:21:33] Voice 16: because the relevant staff is on vacation.

[3:21:37] Voice 16: This is our opportunity to authorize the funds

[3:21:42] Voice 16: and the amount uh i'm gonna request that we authorize the maximum amount of 150 dollars

[3:21:52] Voice 16: we don't want to know if that's going to be it but let's just give the space for there for it

[3:21:55] Voice 16: uh which is what it says in the policy so i move that the ski land the ski island local trust

[3:22:02] Voice 16: committee authorize up to 150 dollars to be used to host a community stewardship award celebration

[3:22:08] Voice 16: event.

[3:22:09] Voice 5: Well, do I have a seconder? Seconded. Seconded. Discussion on the motion. Thank you

[3:22:18] Voice 5: for putting it forward. I think it's going to be great for your community to celebrate.

[3:22:26] Voice 5: Izzy, as I know she's called. Marlins, did you have?

[3:22:30] Planner McCargar: Yeah, I just wanted to add just a little

[3:22:31] Planner McCargar: bit of extra information because I was able to speak with the coordinator of these events.

[3:22:37] Planner McCargar: and she said so the awards weren't ready in time to present at today's meeting so she will work

[3:22:44] Planner McCargar: with the LTC to schedule a different time for the award presentation. Sheila the recipient has

[3:22:50] Planner McCargar: offered to give a reading from her book and she I guess can also apply for funding to cover

[3:22:56] Planner McCargar: the cost of that. So that's something that could also be explored but I think it's

[3:23:03] Planner McCargar: great that you'll also have a resolution um as well so we can explore both and just wondering

[3:23:11] Planner McCargar: if there's interest in from the ltc in pursuing this as a standalone event or if you'd want it

[3:23:17] Planner McCargar: um kind of piggybacked on an ltc meeting

[3:23:23] Voice 16: um yeah not having um the staff that i was i wasn't able

[3:23:32] Voice 16: we'll talk to staff my understanding this will just be authorizing funding so that if the event

[3:23:38] Voice 16: happened to take place um any time between now and a future lgc meeting that at least the funding

[3:23:50] Voice 16: is in place for it um i think it personally i think it's nicer as a standalone event

[3:24:00] Voice 16: um also we're not going to have an in-person ltc meeting until at least december

[3:24:06] Voice 7: um

[3:24:07] Voice 16: so i know staff

[3:24:10] Voice 16: will do their scheduling the way they need to and we're not going to try and intervene in that but

[3:24:15] Voice 16: but i'd lean towards a standalone event so that it's just a nice little

[3:24:19] Voice 16: it's its own little thing and we don't have to necessarily wait until the middle of winter for it

[3:24:24] Voice 16: and if it you know

[3:24:26] Voice 16: and staff will make whatever determination they have but that's where i'm

[3:24:29] Voice 16: leaning i don't want to prescribe that just want to make sure that we've got the money for tea and

[3:24:35] Voice 16: coffee and a cake or whatever has to happen well

[3:24:39] Voice 5: and i'm wondering if it could be actually a special

[3:24:43] Voice 5: meeting um that could be convened in person the chair doesn't have to travel but um we could do

[3:24:52] Voice 5: do one item of business review the business case and celebrate I don't know yeah or

[3:25:00] Voice 5: how does how

[3:25:01] Voice 5: the thing

[3:25:01] Voice 16: is is if we if we leave it up to staff then that's great if it works out that we get a

[3:25:07] Voice 16: chance to review the business case wonderful but let's not hold up the event

[3:25:11] Voice 16: if we can have the

[3:25:14] Voice 16: event and the business case is ready so that's why I'm saying standalone and it's independent of that

[3:25:20] Voice 5: and with staff of the venue and

[3:25:23] Voice 16: staff will do what they do i'm sure we can um you know i'm

[3:25:29] Voice 16: i'm here all the time i will help in whatever way is appropriate staff know the all of the

[3:25:39] Voice 16: all the many venues on the skeety that we could get booked so i'm confident it will double

[3:25:45] Voice 5: Excellent. Okay. Any more discussion on the motion? Good. All those in favor? That is carried. Thank you.

[3:25:59] Voice 5: Okay, so I'd like to add one more item of new business, 12.2, to respond to some of the questions and comments we received during town hall today.

[3:26:12] Voice 5: today. So forgive me, and Lisa, I sent the resolution to you as well. But yeah, this

[3:26:21] Voice 5: is just so I'm going to call 12.2 request for information regarding coordination agreements.

[3:26:29] Voice 5: And yeah, it's quite simple. Folks are not clear on what protocol agreement is or coordination

[3:26:36] Voice 5: agreements and what that process looks like what is this trust council's duty and how does that

[3:26:44] Voice 5: work with the liskiti local trust committee is the community informed how is the community consulted

[3:26:49] Voice 5: um what opportunity for the liskiti community members to um weigh into that process

[3:26:58] Voice 5: comment on it so all of these questions have been coming up so um staff what kind of

[3:27:06] Voice 5: of thank you joe elliott for listening in and this is a recommended motion or i would like to move

[3:27:15] Voice 5: that staff provide information to the luskedia local trust committee about trust council's

[3:27:20] Voice 5: coordination agreements process it's just simple seconded any more discussion all right all those

[3:27:31] Voice 5: in favor and that is carried thank you so much to staff for suggesting that and for um i hope this

[3:27:40] Voice 5: leads to some better understanding of uh our ability to coordinate with first nations and

[3:27:47] Voice 5: what that looks like for the public so we have a series of reports um infection 13 they're all for

[3:27:56] Voice 5: your review the fourth quarter update from the trust conservancy board is quite uh quite an

[3:28:02] Voice 5: update lots going on at the conservancy i highly recommend folks watch those board meetings they're

[3:28:09] Voice 5: some of the most exciting talk about stewardship and what it looks like to work with first nations

[3:28:15] Voice 5: and we have very very good things happening so uh applications report trustee and local expense

[3:28:22] Voice 5: report um and we don't have a first nations relationship building update local trust

[3:28:29] Voice 5: Committee web page. Are there any issues with them?

[3:28:32] Voice 7: No? All

[3:28:33] Voice 5: good? Okay, so we'll turn to our

[3:28:35] Voice 5: Active Projects Report, page 52. Not much there because that Active Project is no longer active,

[3:28:46] Voice 5: so that'll be removed. And Future Projects Report, is there anything that you'd like to change or

[3:28:58] Voice 5: kind of additional notes maybe to leave for the incoming um trustees yeah

[3:29:11] Voice 16: well i mean as

[3:29:11] Voice 16: i mentioned before i haven't heard a groundswell of items that need to be in this and uh

[3:29:19] Voice 16: i think there's already plenty for a new local trust committee to chew on there

[3:29:31] Voice 5: well i assume actually maybe i should ask our pm general um can we assume that the sorry renee

[3:29:41] Voice 5: i didn't that the what was in scope for the minor project to this minor project that is now

[3:29:51] Voice 5: not moving ahead the minimum lot size subdivision four hectares to 4.05 would that be included

[3:29:59] Voice 5: it in the scope.

[3:30:00] Voice 5: for OCP LUV review?

[3:30:05] Voice 17: Through the chair,

[3:30:06] Voice 17: that wasn't part of the clarification

[3:30:08] Voice 17: to include as in the business case.

[3:30:12] Voice 17: So if the LTC wanted to include that work

[3:30:18] Voice 17: as subdivision potential, for example,

[3:30:21] Voice 17: in your OCP policies,

[3:30:22] Voice 17: that's important to include.

[3:30:24] Voice 17: So staff can put that in the scope of work.

[3:30:29] Voice 5: Trustee Peterson?

[3:30:31] Voice 5: yeah

[3:30:31] Voice 16: so my understanding is that we have asked staff to do some work

[3:30:36] Voice 16: and to bring proposed bylaw 108 to the local trust committee

[3:30:42] Voice 16: and i was corrected by staff that we're looking at our ocp and not the land use bylaw which is

[3:30:51] Voice 16: where i believe subdivision regulations would fall um that's

[3:30:58] Voice 5: an only review as well

[3:31:00] Voice 16: so i mean i don't know is it necessary to put that in there i mean that's

[3:31:07] Voice 16: i think that if the incoming local trust committee looks at the proposed 108 and decides there's work

[3:31:14] Voice 16: to be done they will determine either to do it as a minor project or to you know ask to put it in

[3:31:23] Voice 16: they'll be getting a they'll be getting the project charter for the major project so i think

[3:31:28] Voice 16: that's an opportunity for them to make that determination at that point i don't want to do

[3:31:32] Voice 16: it for them now that's

[3:31:34] Voice 5: fine yeah

[3:31:35] Voice 17: um chair if i may um on the future projects report on page 54

[3:31:42] Voice 17: of the agenda it does have items noted for the ocp and lub review as subdivision regulations

[3:31:49] Voice 17: regulations, including lot size proof of water. So the LTC could ask to ask staff to put that back

[3:31:58] Voice 17: into scope for the OCP project, as it's relevant for the policies review.

[3:32:05] Voice 5: Yeah, it's, I'm kind of

[3:32:09] Voice 5: up two minds, because I do think it, I think staff are going to end up recommending that, you know,

[3:32:18] Voice 5: subdivision lot size be looked at anyways because it will accord with whatever the community said

[3:32:24] Voice 5: about the in the ocp review so i i don't know i think it's probably gonna come about as a result

[3:32:35] Voice 5: of the ocp review and if the community thinks it's important they will not be hesitating to

[3:32:40] Voice 5: raise their voices and that is not going to add

[3:32:48] Voice 5: it in right

[3:32:49] Voice 8: now we're

[3:32:50] Voice 5: good with the future projects

[3:32:51] Voice 5: list as it stands and staff will draft the business case pretty much along the same lines

[3:32:58] Voice 5: of the last one but we'll also get an interest framework process primer back and that's good

[3:33:06] Voice 5: information anything else okay so that pretty much concludes our business today uh our next

[3:33:16] Voice 5: Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, November 23rd, 2026, 11 a.m.

[3:33:24] Voice 5: That will be held electronically, and likely I won't be in the seat,

[3:33:31] Voice 5: so I bid you all adieu, and thank you for allowing me to serve as chair.

[3:33:37] Voice 5: We love your community.

[3:33:38] Voice 5: It's been a pleasure.

[3:33:40] Voice 5: Call for adjournment.

[3:33:41] Voice 5: One moment before I call for adjournment.

[3:33:43] Voice 5: Oh.

[3:33:46] Voice 8: Oh.

[3:33:50] Voice 7: oh

[3:33:53] Voice 8: i love

[3:33:54] Voice 5: flowers thank you you are truly a lovely beautiful community and i see

[3:34:01] Voice 5: all the diversity and all the wildness that you are and i've so appreciated the lessons that i've

[3:34:08] Voice 5: learned with you so

[3:34:09] Voice 8: uh

[3:34:10] Voice 5: with that many thanks from my heart i wish you well on your next term

[3:34:15] Voice 5: and i'll fall for a german for the last time all those in favor bye

[3:34:23] Voice 8: thanks everyone thanks lisa thank you bernie

[3:34:28] Voice 10: thanks martis