Questions, answered.

This question came from a questionnaire that was sent to me. It only quoted the first half of the mandate, but it's worth considering the object of the Trust in its entirety. Section 3 of the Islands Trust Act states:

The object of the trust is to preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, First Nations, other persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia.

To me, environment means the natural systems that sustain these islands: forests, wetlands, watersheds, aquifers, shorelines, nearshore waters, biodiversity, habitat, air and climate resilience.

Unique amenities is a broader concept. To me, it includes the natural, cultural, social and community qualities that make these islands distinct and liveable. Trust Council's own published interpretation specifically says that unique amenities may include housing, livelihoods, infrastructure and tourism. It also says decisions should recognize all three elements of the object and give clear reasons when one is prioritized in a particular case.

The Act establishes one object: preservation and protection are its purpose, residents of the Trust Area and British Columbia generally are its beneficiaries, and cooperation is the method the Legislature expressly includes.

Based on the official first-reading version, I support several of its goals: environmental protection, reconciliation, better inter-agency cooperation, directing development to suitable locations, reducing sprawl, planning for community facilities, supporting sustainable economic activity and providing a wider range of housing.

I would still require amendments before adoption. Among other issues:

• The introductory explanation describes directive policies as policies with which OCPs and regulatory bylaws “should be consistent” and which they “should directly address,” while the operative directive headings say local trust committees and island municipalities “shall” address them. Those formulations should be reconciled so their legal and administrative effect is clear.
• Important terms used in the housing policies, including “attainable housing,” require clear definitions.
• The relationship among environmental priority, limits on development, detailed study of housing needs being incorporated, community services and economic activity needs to be expressed clearly enough for local OCPs and bylaws to apply it consistently.
• Also should include universal shoreline protection, in other words consistent and predictable permitting.
• This must include the public having a clear account of what changed after referrals and engagement, why it changed, and what practical effects the final wording is expected to have.

The official first-reading document is Islands Trust Policy Statement Bylaw, 2025, Bylaw No. 183, Schedule A. Trust Council gave it first reading on July 29, 2025. The official project page says referral responses have been received, engagement with Indigenous Governing Bodies is continuing, and the draft can still be amended. The official FAQ says adoption is not expected before the end of 2027 at the earliest. So, calling this the “2026 draft” without a date, version, link or bylaw number makes the question impossible to answer precisely.

This question is broad, but the Act provides a useful starting point.

Section 4 describes the intended functions of the Trust's governing bodies. Section 8 sets out Trust Council's responsibilities, including adopting the budget and Policy Statement and considering bylaws for approval. Section 24 sets out local trust committee responsibilities and powers, including bylaw enforcement and regulation of land development and use.

An elected local trustee therefore has two connected roles. The trustee sits on the local trust committee, making local land-use decisions, and on Trust Council, making Trust-wide policy and financial decisions.

Trustees should:

• apply the full statutory object, not a selective excerpt from it;
• exercise independent judgment on the evidence and law before them;
• explain how a decision measures environmental protection, as well as community effects and the limits of Trust jurisdiction;
• distinguish what the LTC can regulate from services delivered by the CRD, the Province, improvement districts and other bodies;
• advance the meaningful cooperation with First Nations and other governments described in the Act;
• provide timely, understandable reasons for consequential decisions; and
• remain accountable to the whole public, including people who do not belong to an organized advocacy group.

Trustees are not elected to serve as delegates of a faction. They are elected to make lawful, evidence-based decisions in public and to answer for those decisions.

Criticisms commonly raised about the Trust point in opposite directions. Some people say it permits too much development; others say it obstructs necessary housing and community services. Some criticize delay, cost, enforcement, transparency, public engagement, Trust-wide policy or the division of authority among agencies. Those are different claims requiring different evidence and different remedies.

Criticism is valid when the public record demonstrates unreasonable delay, unclear responsibility, inadequate reasons, inconsistent enforcement or decisions made without the evidence needed to assess their effects. Criticism is not established merely because someone disagrees with an outcome. Each claim still has to be tested against the record and the authority of the body responsible.

My approach is straightforward. Identify the particular decision or institutional practice. Establish the facts and the responsible authority. Publish the timeline and reasons. Then decide whether the problem lies in the law, the policy, its administration, available resources or a failure of accountability.

I will not endorse or dismiss an unspecified bundle of criticisms. A questionnaire intended to inform voters should identify the claims it wants candidates to address.

Environmental protection is a central responsibility of the Islands Trust, and this is a legitimate question. It is too narrow, however, if it is meant to give voters a grasp of a candidate's full platform. The questionnaire asks no parallel question about housing, community services, local livelihoods, transparent government or inter-agency cooperation.

Within the Trust's land-use authority, I would pursue policies that:

• update and publicly map sensitive ecosystems, watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, wildfire hazards and shoreline vulnerability using current evidence;
• apply clear, island-wide shoreline protection through the OCP, development permit areas and land-use regulations, with understandable rules and defensible exemptions;
• direct additional development toward suitable locations where water, wastewater, transportation and emergency-service constraints can be addressed, rather than promoting scattered sprawl and forest fragmentation;
• require decisions on rezonings and major applications to consider cumulative effects on water, habitat and climate resilience, not only the effect of one parcel in isolation;
• protect riparian areas, wetlands, mature forest and ecological connectivity through tools that fall within local land-use authority;
• improve compliance and enforcement by publishing clear rules, application status and outcomes; and
• cooperate with First Nations, the CRD, improvement districts, provincial agencies, landholders and conservation organizations where the LTC lacks the authority or capacity to act alone.

Those policies should be designed together with policies for housing, transportation, food production, emergency readiness, accessibility and a functioning local economy. The Act creates one statutory object, not separate environmental and community mandates. Land-use planning has to recognize the environment, unique amenities, public benefit and cooperation contained in that object, within the authority the Legislature has actually given the Trust.

Yes. I support retaining the existing policy unless and until the OCP review adopts a clearer, evidence-based replacement. I would not delete it and leave Salt Spring without an island-wide growth-management guardrail.

The questionnaire's affordability footnote needs qualification. It gives a general provincial measure without telling readers that the cited OCP supplies a different definition. In the consolidated Salt Spring OCP currently published by Islands Trust, “affordable housing” means rental or owned housing that can be acquired with 30 per cent of the median gross income of families or individuals on Salt Spring Island. The OCP consolidation is dated October 2020 and is published for convenience, so any reliance on it should acknowledge that status.

BC Housing's general measure describes housing as affordable when a household spends 30 per cent or less of its gross income on housing costs. That is broadly the measure paraphrased in the questionnaire, but it is not the definition supplied by the cited OCP. The two use different income benchmarks and can produce different affordability thresholds.

The policy itself is also broader than the questionnaire's emphasis suggests. It permits few and minor exceptions not only for affordable housing, but for “affordable housing and other objectives of this Plan.”

Through the OCP review, I would propose replacement wording along these lines:

Zoning changes should be avoided where their cumulative effect would increase island-wide residential development potential beyond the baseline established by the zoning in effect in 2008. Exceptions are to remain few and minor unless an adopted OCP growth-management framework, supported by current evidence on water, infrastructure, natural hazards, housing need and ecosystem capacity, identifies an appropriate location and scale for additional development. Every exception must advance a specified objective of this Plan and disclose its net and cumulative effect on residential development potential. Where affordable housing is relied upon, the applicable income, cost, tenure and duration requirements must be defined and secured through a legally available housing agreement or covenant.

That wording would retain the present guardrail while making the evidence and accountability requirements clearer. Any exception should show, on the public record:

• the net change in residential development potential and the cumulative effect of earlier exceptions;
• how the proposal advances identified OCP objectives;
• whether the location has adequate water, wastewater, transportation and emergency-service capacity;
• how environmental and climate risks will be avoided or mitigated;
• what enforceable public benefit is being secured, including permanent affordability where affordability is claimed; and
• why the exception is preferable to using land that is already appropriately designated and zoned.

Where affordable housing is offered as the justification, affordability should be defined by tenure, eligible household income, cost, duration and an enforceable housing agreement or covenant where legally available. A percentage without those details does not establish that a home will remain affordable or reach the people it is intended to serve.