Last week, I lost one of my most prolific First Nations teachers of 30 years, Mickey Cook. He taught me, and thousands of others, “to thine own self be true”. I would not be living up to that personal standard if I did not speak out at this time. 

Mickey used to say “when you walk outside and the wind blows in your face that is the Creator talking to you”. The wind has blown in my face too many days without putting pen to paper.

There are many people living in the District of Saanich who greatly value the unique ecosystem we are fortunate to live in, and rightfully so! Saanich is a biodiversity hotspot, located in the imperiled Coastal Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic zone. It is graced with the most temperate climate in the country and hosts rare ecosystems like Garry oak meadows. 

However, since 2018 when environmental development permit areas (EDPAs) were rescinded in Saanich, sensitive ecosystems once afforded special oversight, have been left without protection. This was due to a small, but vocally persistent minority. The most recent vote on Saanich’s People, Pets, and Parks Strategy, which resulted in a softening of proposed bylaws to keep dogs leashed in certain ecologically sensitive parks demonstrates the same lack of political courage from current council members. It seems that environmental health is trumped by the mental health of dogs.

Although Council made a Climate Emergency Declaration in 2019, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council (WLC) in 2021, and committed to uphold global biodiversity targets in 2022, their actions speak louder than these words. At present there are poor (if they even exist) sensitive ecosystem or site specific protections and riparian setbacks. There are few (if any) strong and enforceable environmentally-focused bylaws. 

Further, Saanich’s Environmental Services Department has been gutted and absorbed into Parks, Recreation, and Community Services; the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy is incomplete; and the Urban Forest Strategy has yet to be implemented. Together, these shortcomings demonstrate that elected leaders are not being led by law, science, reconciliation, or best practices but something else. Something with the power to sway us.

Saanich Council’s most recent vote is just another signal of their divestment from environmental responsibility. 

In 2023, development is at the top of the local agenda, forced along by provincial housing targets without transparency, public participation, or consent. This is especially concerning when, to my knowledge, no free, prior and informed consent has been granted from local First Nations, despite our MOU with the WLC and a legal requirement to align with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Our municipal democracy is in freefall.

Helping to push it off the edge are narratives from Homes for Living, (Homes for Living is a registered third-party sponsor with Elections BC in the 2022 election and a registered non-profit) that chose and funded a slate of candidates based on surveys with carefully crafted questions that in my opinion, presupposed votes, narratives and outcomes in local elections. Representatives from this group now hold a majority on Saanich Council. One of their goals is not to supply affordable, but rather “attainable” housing. That this supply will create more affordable housing is a myth that can be debunked by simply looking across the Salish Sea to Vancouver, one of the most expensive places to live in the country despite a strong commitment to increasing housing supply.

Housing has become the province’s raison d’etre, eclipsing healthcare and emergency response, infrastructure renewal, climate change action and a biodiversity crisis. Local systems are not sufficiently equipped to support this influx. When regular people cannot find a doctor, emergency rooms are filled to the brim and mental health treatment centres are at capacity, how can we welcome more people into the District? 

This is just one example of the limited capacity of our human-built systems, to say nothing of the carrying capacity of the natural world. Scientific and legal compliance are not NIMBYism.

This is not to say housing is not needed. A safe, secure place to live is every person’s right. But there are speculators and developers who have been taking advantage of the current situation, shamelessly profiteering and hijacking the greater community good on these unceded lands. Homes for Living and its new Homes for People action plan will create increased density by upzoning and blanket zoning. Without any adequate environmental protection policies or plans in place and absent public participation, this new trajectory for Saanich has left me uneasy as a municipal councillor.

Last month, a Leger poll showed only six per cent of Canadians blame the country’s onerous housing costs on municipalities. As local government, we must remember we are the most powerful level of government for affordability and environmental sustainability because of our ability to zone lands. Zoning land is a powerful tool that must be used wisely and for the public interest.

The pressure from the province to build more houses is immense. But, knowing Saanich does not have adequate environmental protections, tree protection, and streamside and foreshore protections in place is causing me duress. I also believe our Memorandum of Understanding with the WSANEC leadership council in question. I am advocating for sustainable development. I am advocating for consultation with First Nations. I am advocating for good fiscal management. Losing biological diversity comes at a cost, and maintaining it should be a priority. 

As a local councillor, I do not belong to a political party. I am also 100% NOT developer funded. I make decisions that do not include private, development, or industrial influence. My focus is on sustainable land use. As a councillor, I have been consistently advocating for fair public amenities and environmental protection during subdivision and development applications. My voting record confirms my understanding of zoning.

I am also not on the Homes For Living team and I did not fill out the Homes For Living survey. It was created by a development lobby group and includes their definitions of the crisis and their solutions. I do not agree with a majority of these solutions, including their definition of affordability.

As citizens of the region, my husband and I consider the in-perpetuity protection of Madrona Farm among our most important marital achievements. These 24 acres are among the most speculated, expensive, and sought over lands in Canada. We are so pleased to have, through the help of family, friends of Madrona Farm, and the public, protected these lands forever and created this legacy in the most biodiverse part of Saanich, BC, and Canada. It has been our life.

Without environmental protection during development, the results are not sustainable. When we convert a biodiversity hotspot into non-pervious surfaces and pipes it is not good financial management. When we tear out natural features, we are removing free ecosystem services known more commonly as Nature-based solutions. Nature provides resiliency from disturbance and mitigates climate impacts (flooding, landslides, extreme heat, etc.). The cost of preservation is much cheaper than restoration.

I advocate for smaller house sizes and wise placement. I am of the mindset we should build around trees. We do not have much room in some parts of Saanich for tree replacement. Therefore, when we remove trees we really are removing them, and giving up their free ecosystem services: water retention, flood abatement, pollution filtration, pollination, carbon sequestration, etc. Trees protect us from the elements, provide shade, and are part of the hydrological cycle. Native trees provide habitat for birds and bees and butterflies and a myriad of other creatures. We live in an incredibly biologically diverse region with dozens of federally endangered species. We should be celebrating and stewarding these unique habitats. Instead, we are unravelling generations of traditional land-use techniques and fertility and habitats and replacing them with buildings that may only last 60-100 years.

Even large non-native trees should be prioritized over pavement. Removing trees for bike lanes when tree removal accelerates climate change and increases the impacts of heat domes does not make sense. I just came back from Corsica, where it was 45°Celcius and there are beautiful bike lanes there. Guess what? They were bare. Nobody feels like riding in those temperatures. So more thoughtful planning is needed. With each tree removal we eliminate ecosystem services without properly understanding their true value.

There is value in biodiversity that is never adequately quantified or included in fiscal calculations. These are free services that Nature provides us on the most biodiverse and fertile lands in Canada. This is why I advocate strongly for Development Cost Charges (DCC) and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and public amenities. We need to put a price tag on biodiversity, and insist on updated development fees. My motto “developers pay their fair share” comes from this. As a food grower, I know the cost and time of building fertility and doing sustainable land use. Also as a restoration ecologist I know the cost of replacing these ecological attributes. The cost of maintaining Nature Based Solutions is far cheaper than restoration. And, unfortunately, the public is always on the hook for restoration.

Coming from a background of conservation and protecting lands, I am very busy strategizing on what comes next. Sustainability is about conducting land use that meets the needs of current generations without impairing future generations’ ability to meet their needs. It is about returning to the reverence that was practiced here since time immemorial. To me this is synonymous with climate action. We love our kids – right? We are currently doing one-generation land use, not stewarding the earth for the next generations.

Much of my hope lies in private property owners protecting their own properties in a variety of ways. I am inspired by the WSANEC land trust and the first land transfer of Maber Flats. I believe it will be the first of many. Raincoast Conservation Foundation can also write covenants and protect lands through land trusting. I hope to raise millions between these two organizations, as well as a fund for people who want to covenants on their property but cannot afford to so.

People often come to me and ask me how to protect their lands and now I can direct them better. I will not give up on the ability and will still strongly advocate for local government to protect the environment through zoning and environmental policy. Creating a biodiverse refugia for the health of family/community and a legacy for future generations is possible.

I can not emphasize how important it is that citizens pay attention to changes in zoning in light of our demand for new housing. As always I welcome you to speak with me.

We can “be the change we wish to see in the world”.