Letter to Mayor Murdock regarding your Chairing at the Feb 11, 2025 Saanich Special Council Meeting
By Sasha Izard
Feb 20, 2025
Hello Mayor Murdock,
I am writing in regard to your Chairing at the Saanich Special Council Meeting that took place on February 11, 2025 on the subject of the draft Quadra McKenzie Plan (Item B.1) – which brings cause for serious concern regarding a lack of fair and equal opportunity to provide public input, as prerequisite for democratic decision-making. This is evinced by the fact that I was prevented by yourself from providing a speech (36:35 etc. in the video recording) and yet someone else later that evening finished the same speech uninterrupted. (4:44:28).
Provision 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”.
How is it not discrimination, for one person to be prevented from finishing a speech during public input, but for another person to finish the same speech without any interruption whatsoever?
You lectured myself twice not to speak about the Urban Development Institute (UDI), which is a registered organization on the BC Lobbyists Registry. Actually ironically I did not mention the UDI before you initially pre-emptively cut me off (35:25) to prevent myself from even potentially speaking about it.
Without mentioning the UDI up to that point once, I was prevented by you in advance from even potentially mentioning the UDI, something that reveals to myself what appears to be prejudice on your part, and you interrupted and lectured myself again not to speak about the UDI at the 35:58 time point.
In comparison, the speaker who finished my speech mentioned the UDI 5 times without any interruption whatsoever.
Comparison:
0: I made 0 mentions of the UDI that are audible on the recording, before I was pre-emptively prevented by you from saying the organization’s name, nor even uttering the initials of it. I did mention the UDI once afterward, but that is not audible on the recording.
5: The person who finished the same speech said UDI 5 times uninterrupted.
Once again. This in my view is a clearly selective and biased use of censorship during public input at a council meeting. How is this not an example of discrimination? How is it an example of equality for the public before elected officials without prejudice during public input in the council chambers?
How can you meet with a registered lobbying organization as the Mayor on overlapping issues, but one person and one person only is forbidden from mentioning it and the UDI in general during public input?
—————————————————————————————————
In addition, in providing your ‘reasoning’ that I not be able to mention a UDI event that you attended, you claimed that I probably had mentioned this event 12 times previously. (34:56)
What comes to mind is at best 3 or 4 times previously, but even that might be a stretch. Can you remember more than that? This had the appearance of gaslighting myself before the public through the use of wild exaggeration, as a pseudo-justification for an arbitrary prevention of public input.
This impression that you were intentionally gaslighting myself before the public was even stronger, when you framed that my mention of your attending the presentation at the Union Club titled: Pathways to Progress: Uniting Land Use and Transit Strategies for Sustainable Growth as a mere “allegation” your word in quotations. (34:53)
Mr. Mayor, you yourself acknowledged that you attended that event, when I asked you about it at the Saanich Town Hall Council Meeting at the Cedar Hill Golf Course Clubhouse which took place on October 22, 2024. I was the first person to address council at the event. There were many people in the room who heard your response in the affirmative to my question that you attended that event.
Do you not recall that you acknowledged the fact that you attended that event when asked? Do you not recall that you were featured speaker of the UDI event mentioned, which is at the time of writing still posted on the UDI’s own website? Pathways to Progress | Urban Development Institute An archived version is available in the following link in case, the UDI takes it down from public view, like they did their members directory over a year ago: Pathways to Progress | Urban Development Institute
If you do recall that you attended the event, and/or that you admitted this at the Oct 22, 2024 Saanich Town Hall Council Meeting, then why did you refer to my mention of it as an “allegation”.
If you previously acknowledged that you attended this event, and that it is documented on the UDI’s own website under past events, how can you have referred to whether or not you attended the event as a “difference of opinion”? (35:25)
I cannot see how in this case with the UDI event and your having been a featured speaker for it clearly documented, that you were not intentionally gaslighting myself before the public as Chair by referring to my claim as an “allegation”, when I was merely stating a recorded fact that is publicly available/posted information from the UDI’s own website. As a featured participant in that event, clearly you should remember it, and you did remember it previously as you discussed it at the Saanich Town Hall Council meeting dated October 22, 2024. Why was your memory of this on Feb 11, 2025 so different, when you prevented myself from finishing my speech?
—————————————————————————————————
You claimed that by mentioning this UDI event and the UDI in general, I was off-topic and that you did not want to hear my thoughts about the UDI. (35:58)
I was not off-topic, I was merely interrupted so that I was prevented from showing what the connections were, which was the uniting of land use and transit planning in the Quadra/McKenzie Area, which was in accordance with what the UDI had been lobbying the Province on and which has profound implications for the future. Their lobbying included specific reference to the proposed McKenzie and potential Quadra RapidBus lines and the land use changes that the UDI hoped to compel through the implementation of policies like Transit-Oriented Areas and mandatory/enforced housing targets along transit lines, something the UDI lobbied the Province on extensively and to which the Province appears to have responded to through Bill 47 and through the Housing Supply Act (Bill 43), which are drivers that appear to have heavily influenced the QMP Draft.
In regard to the UDI’s municipal liaison meeting with Saanich as I mentioned, the two organizations discussed the decoupling of the Local Area Plans 2 years before it happened, and without any direction from council having been provided on it up to that point, as revealed by minutes of that meeting obtained through Freedom of Information. (See Appendix 3).
This decoupling of the Local Area Plans was prerequisite to achieving the CCVs objectives; which in turn were a response to the Regional Growth Strategy and its Housing Targets, something that the UDI had previously lobbied to the Province extensively, which mandates conformance from the OCP. The decoupling of the Local Area Plans and the adoption of CCVs combined with transit planning, is as far as I can tell the strongest influence that led to the current QMP draft and both yourself and the public should be aware of that background, to have a full picture prior to your decision-making on the issue. By preventing myself from discussing these things and not discussing the background around what has heavily informed the QMP draft, you were inadvertently or otherwise forcing ‘blinders’ on thought around these issues prior to deliberation and the decision-making process, and preventing the wider picture of it from being disseminated during public input.
If my speech was off-topic, why was my speech concluded without interruption by the other speaker?
If you were being fair and allowing equality at the meeting, your ruling would not apply to only one speaker, but to another speaker as well.
The full text of the speech I had prepared is attached in an appendix to this letter.
The content of the speech was directly related to the QMP draft, and was very important input for it. The speech began by showing indications that the public overwhelmingly did not want the QMP, as it was being proposed.
The content also showed that the UDI, which is a registered lobbying organization had included the proposed McKenzie rapid bus line in a lobbying presentation and accompanying letter to the former Minister Responsible for Housing, while advocating for pre-zoning around such areas and applying Transit Oriented Areas to them (The Quadra McKenzie area has a TOA in the new Official Community Plan, although this TOA from what I understand is not Provincially mandated). On top of that the UDI offered a carrot and stick approach to local governments, that could see punishments made to municipalities that don’t comply quickly enough to Provincial mandatory housing targets in such areas. (See Appendix 4)
It is crucial that yourself and the public be informed about this in advance, so as not to fall into such a trap in regard to planning along transport corridors that could have major repercussions in the future including major financial strains on the district through a vastly increased demand for infrastructure that such rapid densification would cause and the increased tolls that that would take on the ecology in an ecologically rich zone including Christmas Hill and Swan Lake.
The UDI’s March 10, 2022 lobbying presentation and accompanying letter, revealed in my view, that the UDI with its proposals, was not acting in the public’s interest in regard to this area, especially by their referring to the public around such proposed transit areas as “NIMBYs” as written below the BC Transit map of the proposed McKenzie and Quadra rapid bus lines that the UDI sent to the current Premier when he was the Minister Responsible for Housing at the time.
The description of the UDI event that you were featured at along with other politicians, including the Transportation Minister at the time, and also a BC Transit Official begins on the UDI’s website:
“The question of whether land use is leading transit or transit is leading land use is a fundamental one in urban planning and transportation policy, with significant implications for how cities develop and function. As the Capital Region continues to experience substantial growth, it is crucial to synchronize development and transit strategies.”
Is this knowledge and question only for select politicians, or should the public know about and consider it as well? It’s a chicken and egg question: which comes first land use leading transit, or transit leading land use? Given that public money is spent by Saanich politicians to attend such events, don’t the public have a right to know about them and their content as well, as it can affect the land-use and transit futures of their communities?
It is in the public interest and in the interests of transparency to know the backstory around lobbying, and what elected officials at multiple levels and branches of government had met with the registered lobbying organization representing development/real estate interests in regard to proposed uniting of land and transit uses in this and other areas, which the proposed QMP (enabled by the decoupling of the Local Area Plans from the Official Community Plan Bylaw) is the most clear example, that I can think of in Saanich of this phenomena.
Less than 2 weeks previously from today, you yourself supported sending a potential lobbyist registry to Saanich’s Strategic Planning process, which the council voted to do, and you yourself campaigned on implementing a lobbyist registry in the last election. Clearly, you understand the importance of transparency around elected officials meeting with lobbyists and lobbying organizations. Why then censor the public from mentioning such an example, when it is related to the merger of transit and land use, of which the draft QMP is perhaps Saanich’s most powerful example? What is the point of having a lobbyist registry which you support, when you will not allow the mention during public input of elected officials meeting with a lobbying organization, nor even allow mention of that organization (for myself only) during public input?
Why cannot it be mentioned, when it is documented from Freedom of Information that the UDI were lobbying in regard to the Quadra/McKenzie corridor? (See appendix 2). Shouldn’t the public and yourselves as elected officials be made aware and cognizant of that?
Is it right to blame the messenger, who has an important message and prevent them from telling it, instead of listening to what they have to say?
It is also in the interest of the elected officials to know this documented information before making their decision, so that they can ensure that they are well informed and acting in the public interest in a democratic society, as opposed to the interests of an outside lobbying organization, which in its own lobbying activities pitted its own agenda of radical enforced densification along proposed rapid transit lines against those living around such areas.
On more than one occasion in the same lobbying letter it referred to residents in such areas as NIMBYs, something that I find insulting to the public who lives in them and the environment of which will be heavily affected by such land/transit uses. In particular, this pejorative label was first levelled by the UDI in the lobbying letter against those living under such areas under a map showing the proposed McKenzie and potential Quadra rapid bus lines. (See appendix 2 at the end).
I cannot thus see how my speech was not directly related to the draft QMP in not only regards to the draft QMP itself, but also in regards to lobbying that had been done regarding the area that is likely to have profound affects on the shaping of the area at the very least, through Provincial legislation e.g. through the advancement of new potential Transit Oriented Areas (TOAs) along such corridors, which the UDI lobbied for and which looks likely in the future.
As an elected official it is important for you to be aware of these things. Preventing the public from communicating them during public input, makes it appear that you do now want to be informed about these issues and that you wish to leave the public in the dark around them, which runs completely contrary to your recent support for a potential lobbyist registry.
Ultimately Mr. Mayor, you yourself inadvertently decided that my speech was on topic in relation to the draft QMP, when you allowed another member of the public to finish my speech uninterrupted.
—————————————————————————————————
Delayed time due to interruptions:
Your claim (36:40) that I was taking time from others (by continuing with my 3-minute speech) was rendered directly contradictory by your calling a recess to prevent myself from finishing. This act can only be considered theatre of the absurd.
The call for the unnecessary recess near the beginning of the meeting combined with the recess itself took about 3 minutes.
Your repeated interruptions of my presentation and recess to prevent myself from speaking, took far more time than if you just let me finish my speech naturally, something that in addition to extending the time with your methods described, was rendered pointless anyway when you allowed another speaker later in the evening to finish my speech without interruption.
If your real attempt was to save time for the public by interrupting my speech and calling a recess, your actions did the opposite. Thus, you are responsible for taking more of the public’s time than was necessary that night, not I, as you claimed.
My speech began at the 34:04 time point in the meeting. Your interruptions and call for recess stretched that out to the 40:45 time point. If your intention was to conserve meeting time by not allowing myself to speak for 3 minutes, your interruptions and recess stretched the time used to 6 and a half minutes, more than twice the amount of time than if you had not interfered at all.
In addition, a member of the public finished my speech later in the evening starting at the 4:44:24 time point and ending at the 4:46:34 time point. Thus, in total, instead of allowing myself 3 minutes to speak uninterrupted, my speech was ultimately completed, but because of your repeated interruptions and completely unnecessary recess, the total amount of time spent for both my speech and censoring it ultimately amounted to over 8 and a half minutes, that is 5 and a half minutes more than was actually necessary, if I was simply allowed to finish my speech naturally without interruption.
—————————————————————————————————
In regards to your having prevented my public input, and the Canadian Constitution:
After being cut off, at the 35:35 time point, I said, “To the Mayor, under the Canadian Constitution, section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I have the right to my opinion.” I was immediately cut off by yourself again.
At the 36:00 time point I asked you as Chair:
“What procedure allows you to override the Canadian Constitution section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”? Rather than answer my question, I was immediately cut off by yourself again.
At 36:35 you responded to my reference to the Charter by saying that you are not a lawyer and then you continued to proceed in your preventing myself from speaking.
You may not be a lawyer, but you are the Mayor of Saanich. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Canadian Constitution, and in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and case law related to it to determine if an actual legal pathway exists to cut a person off from expressing themselves in public input, when they are trying to participate in what should be a democratic decision-making process.
To not have determined in advance if cutting a member of the public off under such conditions is in keeping with the Canadian Constitution, opens the possibility that the District may be operating in an unlawful manner. This situation unresolved would not in my view be befitting of a Mayoral role.
Ignorance, if it is the case of the highest law of the land, while in power is not a defense for potentially running contrary to it.
I ask you on the record to consult the CAO and a District corporate lawyer if available, to determine if such actions are in keeping with the Canadian Constitution.
On October 17, 2024, I wrote to Saanich’s CAO asking if the use of Robert’s Rules of Order (what you would later use on Feb 11, 2025 to prevent myself from speaking) must be consistent with the Constitution?
On October 30, 2024, the CAO replied to that question in the affirmative.
From my research, I have found case law that also affirms that government must not curtail public input/participation in the decision-making process.
If you have case law that states the contrary, by all means please show it to me.
This is what I have found:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a number of rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression and the right to equality. It forms part of our Constitution – the highest law in all of Canada.”[i]
The Charter states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize […] the rule of law:”
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
[My note: The literal meaning of Democracy is ‘Rule by the People’. In a democratic society the people are in power. I cannot see how preventing free expression of thought and opinion by the public during a “Public Input” segment is in accord with democratic people-based rule. I cannot see how a society where public input, expression and thought is intentionally corralled into narrow confines and prevented as a result, from its full potential range of complex thought involving numerous potential connections, expression, statement of a wide range of facts, and potential for higher-order thinking/case making; during public input, prior to government deliberations and/or decision-making – is in accord with a free and democratic society. Rather on the contrary, I consider such preventing of the full range of public thought and expression prior to decision-making to be not only unreasonable, but a sign of an authoritarian non-democratic approach to governing and out of keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution which it is a part of.]
“2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”
I note that the video camera I was recorded on at the Saanich Special Council Meeting, on Feb 11, 2025, is a medium of communication.
Section: “32 (1) of the Charter notes that the Charter applies to the government of Canada, including Federal and Provincial levels in respect to all matters under their authority,”[ii] which I note would include municipal matters and would include both Legislation and Bylaw and their application.
I find this section key. How could section 2(b) of the Charter not apply to all levels of government in regard to democratic public participation? Municipalities are under the legislative authority of the Provincial level of government. The highest law of the land is the Canadian Constitution. The use of Bylaw must be in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.
As has been stated[iii]: “Where the purpose of a government action is to restrict the content of expression, to control access to a certain message, or to limit the ability of a person who attempts to convey a message to express themselves, that purpose will infringe section 2(b) (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Keegstra, supra).”
On Feb 11, 2025, my ability to express myself, was controlled and ultimately prevented, so that I was unable to provide adequate reasoning during public input at the Saanich Special Council Meeting before being cut off entirely by yourself the Mayor. By limiting my expression and what I could convey to narrow confines, I was not able to use the full range of thought and speech that it takes to make a complex case for ideas that involve complex issues around land use and transit planning in the draft Quadra/McKenzie Plan, including about what appears to be the influence of lobbying to multiple levels of government upon a number of the foundations that affect it and will affect it in the future. The content that serves as the foundation for this reasoning, includes numerous documents obtained by Freedom of Information.
My full speech which appears in an appendix below, combined with the content of this letter, reveals my reasoning in what was not only prepared for 3 minutes, but which goes further into depth on these themes than the meagre confines of 3 minutes speaking time at a council meeting would allow for.
“Even if a purpose is compatible with section 2(b), an individual may be able to demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes their section 2(b) right. In this situation, the individual must show that their expression advances one or more of the values underlying section 2(b), e.g., participation in social and political decision making, the search for truth and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Ramsden, supra).”
I cannot imagine what could be a more perfect example of expression through participation in social and political decision-making than the public input portion at a council meeting. In order to seek truth one must allowed to state facts. This is something I was prevented from doing. In addition, in order to seek truth, sometimes important questions must be raised publicly without suppression, or fear of suppression as well. For a critical view of the wider picture in the search for truth, it is important that there be transparency around elected officials’ dealings with lobbying organizations. The public should be aware of organizations with outside interests that have sought to influence elected officials and government staffers.
I consider that an open public input process be necessary for not only for self-fulfillment, but for community fulfillment as well. I consider that the community (including elected officials) being not only well informed and allowed to be informed, (including widely informed) by free and open public input prior to deliberations and/or decision-making, is critical in a democracy. Certainly, the achievement of self-fulfilment in public discourse would not include being prevented from finishing a mere 3 minute speech, and without unnecessary interference during it.
On Feb 11, 2025, I was denied that ability, yet another member of the public finished my speech later in the evening uninterrupted, which I consider appears in contravention to Provision 15 of the Charter in regard to the right to equality before the Law, as mentioned previously.
In addition, I have asked Saanich’s Chief Administrative Officer, “Is there any legal prohibition against members of the public from speaking at Council Meetings, or Committee of the Whole meetings, about 3rd party information that is on the Public Record?”
The CAO has not been able to provide specific passage(s) of Law and/or Bylaw that indicate that to be the case.
I can only suppose then that such Law(s) and/or Bylaw(s) do not exist. After all, I have been given no reason from the CAO, to believe that they do exist.
One appears to be fully within their Charter Rights (section 2b) in freely speaking about 3rd party information that is on the public record, at Saanich Council Meetings.
This is a democracy. The public cannot in a democracy, when it is their time to speak; be prevented from speaking, based on the arbitrary whim of those in power without solid and precise basis in Law and/or Bylaw including that of the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
To prevent the public from speaking by such means, is not only in my view undemocratic, it appears to violate section (2b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms part of the Constitution of Canada.
I ask on the record, for yourself the Mayor, and the District of Saanich to resolve this issue by determining the legality of preventing public input to a member of the public under such conditions, and publicly stating the finds; before yourself and the District prevents a member of the public from speaking about 3rd party or other information that is on the public record again during public input.
To do otherwise, is in my view a neglect of duty, of public office, and of the Law.
It is your duty as Mayor not only to familiarize yourself with the Canadian Constitution, but to understand as well its application.
Arbitrary rule instead of rule through a solid basis in law is not democratic rule and it is not in keeping with the Constitution.
Thank you,
————————————————————————————————
Appendix 1: The speech that I had prepared and was prevented from completing at the Feb 11, 2025 Saanich Special Council meeting is below. The speech was finished by another speaker that night later in the evening without interruption.
I also finished this speech freely on the radio without interruption on CFAX on Feb 13, 2025 Hour 3 (22:40), which can be listened to at this url: https://omny.fm/shows/cfax-1070/adam-stirling-hour-3-february-13-2025?in_playlist=adam-stirling
Speech:
Item B.1.
The Petition that Saanich not reduce McKenzie and Quadra to single automobile lanes on either side of the roads has received well over 5000 signatures, as you know.
The Save Our Saanich Petition to stop the Quadra/McKenzie Plan has received well over 4000 signatures.
A counter petition setup to the Save Our Saanich Petition has received less than a 10th as many signatures.
It is clear that the public overwhelmingly does not want this plan. So, who wants it?
On May 7, 2024 Saanich disabled its Local Area Plans by rendering them legally non-binding by removing them from the Official Community Plan Bylaw, thus paving the way for this plan to take precedence in the OCP.
The same day the Local Area Plans were disabled, the Mayor was a featured speaker along with a representative of BC Transit, and the BC Transportation Minister at the time, at an event at the Union Club titled: Pathways to Progress: Uniting Land Use and Transit Strategies for Sustainable Growth. The event was hosted by the Urban Development Institute aka the UDI, a registered lobbying organization for development and real estate interests.
2 years earlier, the UDI discussed with Saanich staff the decoupling of the Local Area Plans from the OCP, without any direction from Council on it yet, as revealed by Minutes of the meeting.
Less than 2 months before that, on March 10, 2022, the UDI lobbied David Eby when he was the Minister Responsible for Housing, as I revealed in last week’s Globe and Mail article titled: “Residents gear up for a fight as Saanich feels the growing pains of density”.
Documents obtained from Freedom of Information and correlated to entries in the BC Lobbyists Registry, reveal that the UDI Executive Committee provided to Eby a presentation and accompanying lobbying letter, both of which showed maps with the proposed McKenzie and potential Quadra rapid bus lines.
In the UDI lobbying letter, below the map of the proposed McKenzie line, it was written: “The Province also has a much stronger case for eroding “… local government autonomy near transit stations” and “NIMBY groups arguing against development occurring near stations will face an uphill battle.”
The letter and presentation called for “enforceable” housing targets along so-called rapid transit lines, and content that can be seen as the precursor to Bill 47, pushing density around transit-oriented areas. A carrot and stick approach was lobbied for, with various punishments suggested to be meted out to municipalities that do not build fast enough according to the UDI’s agenda, along designated transit areas.
Proposed punishments included “reduction of funding for infrastructure and community amenities,” “reduction of transit services levels, “curtailing the regulatory powers of municipalities” that do not meet housing targets, that the “Province could assume land-use decisions to pre-zone transit-oriented areas for housing” and finally “using debt as an incentive” for municipalities to achieve their housing targets.
Yes, the UDI understood that it was going to be their agenda against the people of Saanich when the Province would override our autonomy on their behalf, something that was achieved with Bills 44 and 47 and this is further poised to be achieved, if this plan is passed.
Your decision regarding the Quadra and McKenzie Plan will show once and for all, whose side you represented at this critical junction.
Thank you.
—————————————————————————————————
Appendix 2: Excerpt from the March 10, 2022 UDI lobbying letter sent to the former Minister Responsible for Housing as revealed by Freedom of Information. The letter showed a map including the proposed McKenzie and potential Quadra rapid bus lines, along with talk of eroding local government autonomy and a coming uphill battle for “NIMBYs” in such areas.
That it is in both the public interest and in the interest of elected officials to know this information, prior to major decision-making regarding land-use and transit in the area, I consider to be self-evident:
Also from the UDI’s same lobbying letter:
Note: In the last paragraph, RapidBus in the Capital Region is mentioned, in regards to what appears to be a precursor to Bill 47 and the TOAs, something the UDI lobbied the Province on extensively for many years. Note the RapidBus line and extensions of it could trigger new TOAs in the future.
Were you aware of what the UDI was lobbying in regard to the merger of land use and transit before you met with them as featured speaker along with the UDI Capital Region Chair, the BC Transit Director of Corporate and Strategic Planning and the Housing Minister at the time, at their event on this subject at the Union Club?
Were you aware that in order to achieve such ambitious objectives regarding the merger of transit with dense land use, the rendering of the Local Area Plans legally non-binding (decoupling them from the OCP), which was decided on later that evening at Saanich Council and the adoption of a new OCP with much of the content for the QMP in it, was a prerequisite that would allow this type of drastic change in land use, if it was to take place?
As a featured speaker at that event, I find it difficult to believe that you would not have be aware of many of these issues, but I will leave it to you to describe for yourself what you were and are aware of in regard to them.
Appendix 3: The following section of the UDI’s minutes from the following 2022 meeting with Saanich, was retrieved through freedom of information:
PH stands for Public hearing. OCP stands for Official Community Plan. LAP stands for Local Area Plan. DP stands for Development Permit and ADP stands for Advisory Design Panel.
Of particular interest is:
“iii… How do LAP’s factor in?
1. Yes they do factor in.
iv. Decupling of LAP’s from OCP
1. No direction from council yet.”
How could Saanich and the UDI have been discussing decoupling the Local Area Plans from the OCP, if there was no direction from council on this yet?
According to the FOI response, 2 months later, on June 22, 2022 “All members of the Municipal Liaison Committee-Saanich Subcommittee were invited” for “UDI Workshop – Phase 1 OCP Consultation”
The following is excerpted from that section:
SF stands for single family housing. MF stands for multi-family housing.
About 2 years after this meeting, on May 7, 2024 – The majority of Saanich Council voted to pass a new Official Community Plan (OCP) by unusually passing both third and fourth readings of the proposal that same evening, thus rendering a new OCP into existence on that date, while at the same time Saanich’s Local Area Plans (LAPs) were rendered legally non-binding by removing them from the OCP Bylaw (something yourself, the Mayor had referred to as “decoupling” the LAPs from the OCP. The new OCP wasn’t actually due until the end of 2025. Why was it as so many commented, rushed through so quickly?
Earlier that day on May 7, 2024, you Mayor Murdock, were featured speaker at an Urban Development Institute event at the Union Club in downtown Victoria.
The event was called: “Pathways to Progress: Uniting Land Use and Transit Strategies for Sustainable Growth”
The event featured yourself the Mayor, the Transportation Minister at the time, the Chair of the UDI Capital Region, the Mayor of Victoria, the Director of Corporate and Strategic Planning at BC Transit, and a Senior Economist and Vice President of Intelligence at Rennie (the company of Bob Rennie the so-called “Condo-King” in Vancouver.
Later that evening, the new OCP was passed with the CCVs replacing the LAPs in the OCP Bylaw. This action certainly did unite land use and transit strategies, for increased density and from what I gather, what is likely the densest convergence of that appears to be the Quadra/McKenzie corridor.
With this in mind, the UDI’s influence on land-use/transit-planning in the Quadra/McKenzie area, and the Province and Saanich in general; as well as its meeting with politicians and staff, the Provincially registered lobbying group, should receive close scrutiny.
The UDI’s suggesting that the Province level punishments to municipalities that don’t comply with their agenda of densification along transport corridors should offer serious pause for thought, before placing Saanich through its land use and transit strategies into such a position that it may fall victim to these.
All the facts should be on the table without censorship, before deciding the fate of this crucial junction, the result of which is likely to reshape Saanich irreversibly. It is in the public and the elected officials’ best interest to be aware of these issues, and to be fully and well informed of them to make the best decision possible.
Thank you.
Appendix 4:
The UDI Executive Committee’s lobbying presentation provided to David Eby when he was the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing on March 10, 2022. Note one of the slides shows the proposed McKenzie line and a potential future RapidBus line on Quadra (in grey). The following slides were retrieved through Freedom of Information:
References:
Charterpedia – Section 15 – Equality rights
Special Council Meeting
Saanich keeps hope of lobby registry alive – Victoria Times Colonist
How the proposed “RapidBus” lanes in the Capital Region, including on McKenzie, were used as part of the UDI development lobby’s push for enforced densification/upzoning along rapid transit corridors, during their lobbying to David Eby in 2022 – CRD Watch Homepage
Freedom of Information reveals that the Province of B.C. was working to implement what the registered lobbying organization, the Urban Development Institute, had been pushing for. This culminated in the recent Housing Bills that override local government authority on zoning. – CRD Watch Homepage
[i] Graphics and learning resources (justice.gc.ca) (Accessed: September 22, 2024)
[ii] Section: “32 (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament
[…]
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.”
[iii] Charterpedia – Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression (justice.gc.ca) (Accessed: September 22, 2024)
CRD Watch Homepage 
Leave a comment