2026 Local Government Election – Sunshine Coast Conservation Association

New coastal flood mapping shows areas that should not be built upon or redeveloped especially within the downtown, Davis Bay and Porpoise Bay. All Sechelt infrastructure in these areas needs to be relocated and one day (sooner than later) removed. Sechelt must retreat from the flooded areas using green shores design, not hard landscaping or structural diking. The highway is at risk and alternate routes around trouble spots needs to be instituted now. These obvious facts should have been included in our Transportation Plan, that was just adopted, and will need to be in our Official Community Plan Update, that is underway.

Climate adaptation is already a part of how we make everyday infrastructure decisions. As we renew roads, culverts, drainage and sewer infrastructure, we need to be designing for the rainfall, heat, drought and sea-level conditions we're expecting over the life of that infrastructure, not just the conditions of 30 years ago.

Water is a good example. New supply matters of course, but water meters have helped identify leaks that were wasting more than 1.3 million litres every day in the Sechelt area alone. Finding and fixing those leaks creates real additional capacity without having to build anything new.

I'd also like us to make better use of reclaimed water and non-potable sources for things like irrigation of parks and potentially agriculture, rather than using expensive treated drinking water everywhere.

We need to recognize that natural assets are infrastructure too. Wetlands, streams, tree cover and healthy shorelines can help manage stormwater, erosion, heat and flooding.

So my approach would be to protect the natural systems that are already doing work for us, and pursue provincial and federal funding for the adaptations that a community like Sechelt can't reasonably fund alone.

I am willing to advocate for (a) continued FireSmart B.C., funding for residents and mitigation efforts around the boundaries of the District to avoid wild fire damage to infrastructure, and (b) use of local and provincial flood mapping to anticipate where flooding is likely to occur, for future mitigation work, and (c) further work in municipal asset planning that identifies the location extreme weather impacts (e.g., washed out roads, vulnerable water and sewer pipe sections, fire interface zones on the urban boundary, etc.), that have already taken place to anticipate what special measures need to be taken, and (d) changes to the local Building Code to incorporate cooling zones within new multi-unit buildings. The District is already seeking clarification from the Province on standards around the use of gray water plumbing systems in homes, to conserve the use of potable water.

First of all I believe that we are facing climate changes due to human activity. As a new Councillor candidate I am not as familiar with existing local Climate mitigation and coping plans as those currently in office.
My personal perspective is that we need to get our water storage and delivery infrastructure resolved and the sooner the better. I also like water conservation methods already deployed or are about to be enacted. My second local priority is ensuring we have a robust plan for rising sea levels and the likelihood of significant flood events. This also applies to flash floods due to rivers and stream rising from massive rain storms.

Chapman Creek Bridge needs a replacement. It is currently a weak link on our highway.

Selma Park and Davis Bay are on septic. There are aerobic, sand filler and gravity systems available for areas with a high water table. Lift stations are also important for areas of Sechelt with sewer systems.

Limit storm water runoﬀ through rain gardens, permeable materials, green roof construction and maximum floor space ratio.

We should be looking to a country like the Netherlands, with a long history of living under sea level, for engineering, habitat restora/on and green architectural solutions.

I would support natural infrastructure and dedicate part of the municipal budget to climate action. Measures could include retention ponds to manage severe flooding and more street trees to reduce urban heat.

We should work with investors and builders to deliver viable housing while protecting ecosystems and wildlife. Where possible, development should reuse previously built sites and add infrastructure for solar power, water recycling, greywater and rainwater reuse, and stormwater retention.

Climate preparation should be part of our maintenance schedules, engineering standards and budgets.

My strata-management experience helps me ask: What do we own? What condition is it in? What could fail? What needs attention first?

I would support a climate-risk assessment of municipal infrastructure and funding for the highest priorities in our five-year financial plan.

This includes checking drainage and culvert capacity, keeping stormwater out of sanitary sewers, protecting wastewater facilities from flooding, providing backup power, and assessing roads and coastal infrastructure.

I would work with the SCRD on reliable water supply and watershed protection. In Sechelt, I would support water-saving development rules, including rainwater collection and drought-tolerant landscaping. We need to find more water and use less.

I would include wetlands, streams, shorelines and trees in infrastructure planning and compare natural solutions with engineered ones.

I would support setting aside money for this work and applying for grants, with public reporting on what was completed, what it cost and what risks remain.

Climate change is already placing increased pressure on our infrastructure, and I believe we need to prepare proactively rather than wait until systems fail.

I would advocate for a long-term infrastructure plan that identifies our most vulnerable roads, sewer and drainage systems and prioritizes upgrades based on risk and need. This includes improving stormwater management and drainage to better handle extreme rainfall, flooding and erosion, while ensuring new development is designed with future climate conditions in mind.

Water security is also extremely important. I would support working closely with the Sunshine Coast Regional District to strengthen water conservation, increase resilience during drought conditions and explore sustainable ways to make better use of available water resources.

Protecting our natural environment must be part of our infrastructure planning. Healthy forests, wetlands, shorelines and green spaces can help manage stormwater, reduce erosion, provide shade and protect biodiversity. I support incorporating these natural solutions wherever they are practical and cost-effective.

Finally, we need to plan responsibly for the financial impact. I would advocate for pursuing provincial and federal infrastructure and climate-resilience funding so that necessary improvements do not fall entirely on local taxpayers.

My approach would be practical: assess the risks, prioritize the most critical infrastructure, protect our natural assets, work collaboratively with regional and senior governments, and make investments today that reduce larger costs in the future.

Yes the climate is changing and it always has (hence the two ice ages). The big question is are the rising temperatures and weather events human caused or not. From what I understand we have only been keeping temperature records from the late 1800's to early 1900 (depending on where your looking) and the proxy temperature indicators are not as reliable as a thermometer. Therefore, I think the science is not settled on that question of human caused or not and it is still up for debate.

Additionally, I see this push for net zero and pushing for more carbon taxes to solve the problem, I think is just a money grab from the federal government and it doesn't actually solve anything other than make people more poor. As well, with the push for 'clean energy' (electric cars, solar panels, wind mills, etc) is a money grab and doesn't actually solve the issue of rising temperatures for the sustainability and the minerals mined for those products are not 'environmentally friendly' and only have a life span of approx 10 years, therefore not very sustainable. As well, the rumours of child-slave labour in those mine sites for the batteries is unnerving.

This being said, I LOVE the outdoor here on the Sunshine Coast, we are so blessed with the beautiful abundance here. How do we preserve that from getting polluted. I do think stricter laws for illegal dumping is a must, which could include higher fines and possibly jail time. When driving along the logging roads on the north side of town, there is always a vehicle, garbage or old furniture that has been dumped and then ultimately the tax payers are having to clean it up or a good samaritan has to take it upon themselves to get rid of the garage. Additionally, continue with the environmental laws for dumping toxins down our drains or into our streams.

1. Water Conservation will become increasingly more important as we approach 2030. While we may seem to have enough water, as global temperatures increase so will evaporation. Mandate water conservation by only charging customers for the amount of water used and not for the minimum 500liters daily allowance. Incentivize the change of perspective by rewarding for less water used.

2. Reduced cutblock size in forestry and mandate absolute waterway protection including seasonal waterways, creeks and rivers. Expand boundaries from the existing highwater mark plus 18 meters- to 60 meters and also leave visual and most importantly wilderness corridors so animals can access fresh water and the shoreline. No developments that impact water flow downstream.

I am willing to advocate for practical, long-term climate resilience in our municipal infrastructure. That means ensuring water, sewer, roads, drainage and emergency infrastructure are designed and maintained with increasing wildfire, extreme heat, flooding and severe weather in mind. I would also support protecting watersheds and ecosystems that help provide natural resilience, while using sound asset-management planning to prioritize investments and ensure taxpayers are getting value from those investments. Climate resilience should be incorporated into infrastructure planning rather than treated as an afterthought.

Gibsons

The main area of concern is fire smart programs as this is the highest risk, The town is only 4 sq kms which limits our exposure to a degree. \

We are licensed to extract water for 6000 people which will meet our future needs.

Our sewer system is at capacity based on the Community Assessment report 2025 which suggests a serious discussion will have to be had after the current two active developments in the planning department are issued permits as to future scenarios in this regard

We also need to discuss whether this Town can exceed a population of 6000 and whether the Economic, Social and Environmental pillars of the existing municipal governance can sustain this

I will continue to support our Natural Assets Strategy and Urban Forest Plan. The other candidate running for this position has dismissed and disparaged both these initiatives in various Facebook posts over the past several years, so Gibsons has a very clear and stark choice. Under my term as Mayor, we’ve significantly advanced the Natural Assets Strategy through the Aquifer Protection Bylaw, Water Regulation Bylaw, the Charman Creek Restoration Project, the One Water Strategy and the completion of the White Tower Park Stormwater Ponds, among other climate actions. I am especially excited in the coming years to see further improvements in stormwater management at White Tower Park, and to continue to work with the SCRD and Squamish Nation on the One Water Strategy.

I moved in my first term that Gibsons enroll in "Cities Race to Zero” and supported the presentation at Cop26 “From Gibsons to Glasgow” We have some very dedicated staff who have come up with inventive ways to save water. For example, in our Sewage Treatment Plant potable water is no longer used for flushing, partially treated water works just as well saving thousands of gallons. Something I have supported and will continue to support these kinds of initiatives. I’ve advocated and will continue to advocate for Reel Green film initiatives. The installation of camlock power tie ins. Film companies would receive a reduction on their permits fees, if they use battery generators, use recyclables rather than filling endless bags of garbage and where possible use electric production vehicles and tools.

Gibsons has a long history of investing in natural asset management and climate action, and both are now embedded in our planning and operations. Over my eight years on Council, I have supported this work, including our Integrated Stormwater Management Plan, Urban Forest Plan, Corporate Climate Action Plan, Coastal Resilience Project, Aquifer Protection Bylaw, and a new Official Community Plan that builds climate adaptation and mitigation into how our town grows. Since 2020, a dedicated Natural Asset Technician has helped carry this work forward.

If elected, I will advocate for:

Water: continued support for our One Water Strategy Implementation Plan to protect Aquifer 560 and its recharge zone on Mount Elphinstone, in collaboration with the SCRD.
Stormwater and roads: continuing to advance a stormwater utility to provide dedicated, sustainable funding for our natural and built drainage systems, and completing the Charman Creek restoration to reduce flood risk.
Sewer and the shoreline: relocating vulnerable infrastructure above sea level rise boundaries, and a Foreshore Strategy based on Green Shores.
Ecosystems: expanding our tree canopy and protecting our creeks, wetlands and eelgrass beds as the natural assets that protect us.

I think preparing for climate change needs to be part of how we make decisions now, rather than something we deal with only after there is a major problem.

For Gibsons, that means looking carefully at our water, sewer, roads and drainage systems and making sure the decisions we make today take future conditions into account. I would support using the best available information and climate data to understand where we are most vulnerable and where upgrades or changes may be needed.

I also think protecting our natural systems is a really important part of this. Our aquifer, creeks, forests and shoreline are not separate from our infrastructure — they are part of what helps protect our community. Looking after those natural systems can help with things like flooding, erosion, water security and extreme weather.

At the same time, I think we need to be realistic about cost. We cannot do everything at once, so I would support good long-term planning, setting priorities, building reserves and looking for provincial and federal funding wherever possible. I also think it makes sense to look for opportunities to improve resilience when roads, pipes or other infrastructure are already being repaired or replaced.

For me, this comes down to planning ahead, using good information and making thoughtful decisions that protect both the community and the environment over the long term.

Climate change will cost us. The question is whether we pay to prepare or pay more to recover later.

Heavier rainfall and flooding, hotter and drier summers, wildfires, drought, extreme heat, and sea-level rise strain our infrastructure and natural environment. I want us to plan for these risks as part of the infrastructure decisions we already make.

With heavier rainfall and flooding, I would advocate for updating Gibsons’ 2018 Integrated Stormwater Management Plan using current climate projections and recent watershed data. We need to identify which culverts, creek crossings, and drainage routes are most vulnerable and where failure would cause the most damage. When infrastructure needs replacing, we should build it for the conditions it will face over its lifetime.

White Tower Park is a good local example. The Town reports that a $1.5 million investment in stormwater ponds avoided up to $17 million in future infrastructure costs. The ponds manage stormwater, erosion, and flooding. Storing and slowly releasing water also helps us handle increasingly heavy rainfall.

Our natural environment also has a role in preparing for climate change. Trees provide shade during extreme heat, while forests, wetlands, and creeks can slow stormwater and reduce flooding and erosion. I would also work to keep rainwater and groundwater out of sanitary sewers to preserve capacity and reduce treatment costs.

For water, I would continue monitoring and modelling Aquifer 560 so we can respond if conditions change and plan for future demand. For wildfire, I would support prevention work on Town-owned land. Along the waterfront, I would consider sea-level rise, flooding, and erosion when making decisions about infrastructure that may be there for decades.

Ultimately, I would focus first on the risks with the greatest potential consequences and pursue provincial and federal funding wherever possible. Preparing for climate change protects our environment and natural assets and can save taxpayers from much higher costs later.

I'd commit to two things, not just a general promise to "be resilient." First, every new or replacement piece of infrastructure, culverts, water mains, seawalls, gets designed for the climate it will actually operate in over its lifespan, not the climate it was built in. Second, the asset management and reserve funding to make that possible without a crisis-driven scramble each time: the SCRD's own documents admit decades of underfunding, and the 2021 atmospheric river is the cautionary tale, permanent repairs didn't start until 2024. That lag is exactly what proper reserve funding is supposed to prevent. This connects directly to my own platform's property tax pillar: a wider tax base is partly how we pay for this properly instead of catching up after the next emergency.

I will collaborate with the Town's Infrastructure Services Department to identify necessary short and long-term infrastructure improvements. We can then outline a strategic plan based on the urgency of repairs or replacements, estimated costs, and logistical factors such as sourcing materials and minimizing public disruption. Planning these projects well in advance may allow the town to set aside capital reserves, like the Town has done regarding future RCMP costs, to fund future upgrades or cover emergency responses.

The Climate crisis is one the defining challenges of our time – preparing for the impacts, and working to reduce future ones, is critical to the survival of our community. That’s why Managing Climate Risk is one of the pillars of my campaign. We live in an amazing place, but the climate risk is real – we face sea level rise, potential wildfires and water shortages, and heat waves, and failure to address these could be catastrophic for us.

Gibsons was among the first municipalities to formally value natural assets like wetlands and aquifers alongside our traditional infrastructure. Building on this I would push for accelerated implementation of our Climate Action Plan, ensuring that every capital project for water, sewer, and road upgrades incorporates climate projections for heavier rainfall, drought cycles, wildfire frequency, and rising sea levels. This means moving beyond reactive repairs to proactive planning and investment, such as: expanding green infrastructure like bioswales, tree planting, and permeable surfaces to manage stormwater, upgrading coastal protection where erosion and flooding threaten life and property, and systematically reviewing our ageing pipe and drainage systems against projected demand and flood risk. In addition, I would increase communications to our residents, and developers, reminding them to be Fire Smart in their home design and landscaping plans, and point them to guidance on how to accomplish this. Finally, I would ensure that both Upper and Lower Gibsons have publicly accessible cooling centres for vulnerable residents, that are adequately staffed in case of heat waves in order to keep people safe.

Christine Alexander (Director, Area A, Pender Harbour / Egmont)

2021 showed us that we are unprepared for the impacts of climate change, at all levels of government. We experienced a historic atmospheric river that killed five people and destroyed billions in infrastructure, and a heat dome event that killed 619 people, and upwards of a billion sea creatures. It tested the capacity of governments of all levels to respond to climate crises. Local infrastructure was not prepared to handle the new risks climate change poses to our towns and cities, and it took years for the damage to be repaired. The investments we can make today to climate proof our local infrastructure will pay off in the future when our water systems can handle atmospheric rivers and our community buildings can keep people cool through record high heats.

On Council I will advocate for:

Climate ready design standards: so every new storm drain, water main, culvert, road, and sea wall is built with climate change in mind, factoring in climate realities such as the projected half metre of sea level rise expected by 2050.

Fixing the basics first: I will push to get stable funding for annual reinvestments into town assets so we can stop spending money on emergency repair after emergency repair. The upcoming wastewater plan and ocean outfall replacement must be designed for bigger storms and higher tides.

Protecting natural assets: Gibsons is already a leader when it comes to treating nature as infrastructure. From our aquifer, foreshore, creeks, and urban forests, we have many elements of this infrastructure in place and I will work to back the Urban Forest Plan and protect the aquifer, and the watershed above it.

Following through on our Climate Action Plan: Town council endorsed 84 individual actions this year, and I will push for a dedicated budget and annual progress report so that we are held accountable to all 84 of these actions.

Preparing our town: the impacts of the 2021 heat dome and atmospheric river showed municipalities across British Columbia that they need to be ready to take direct action to protect their residents. I will work to see community spaces developed into resilience hubs, with backup power capacity, heating and cooling spaces, and I will push the SCRD to make public its evacuation plan so residents can see where preparations are actually at.

These are burdens our town cannot carry alone, and I will work with UBCM, FCM, and other partners to push Victoria and Ottawa to fund real infrastructure investment and not just ribbon cuttings.

Sunshine Coast Regional District

First we must identify and protect the natural assets that provide services such as stormwater management, cooling, and carbon sequestration. Green infrastructure is less costly, and can be much more effective than grey infrastructure. We need to ensure the health of our watersheds through rigorous monitoring, planning and protection in collaboration with First Nations so that we are more resilient in the face of drought. We also have to have a serious look at managed retreat for at-risk assets, and find new revenue sources to help local governments shoulder the costs of climate change.

I support the work Staff at the SCRD have brought forward, plans to reduce our GHG emissions, flood mapping to inform future land use, diversifying our water system, and emergency planning, among other initiatives. I am encouraged by MoTT upgrading their culvert design to better withstand future events and I will continue to pressure BCTS to do less harm, build better infrastructure, or stop all together. I support emergency preparedness through grants to community groups where possible and after 6 years as a volunteer firefighter I always have community safety front of mind.

Kate-Louise Stamford (Director, Area F, West Howe Sound)

Question 2: Watershed Boards for the Lower Sunshine Coast

Background

Water is our most critical environmental issue. In 2022, drought forced the SCRD, Sechelt, and shíshálh Nation to declare a state of local emergency, and every dry summer since has tested our supply.

Unlike Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, and Manitoba, BC has no provincial system of local watershed boards to address cumulative impacts on watersheds. Watershed boards bring First Nations, local governments, licensees, and neighbours together, from chiefs and mayors to farmers and salmon advocates, to plan for the watersheds they share. 74% of British Columbians support creating them.

What happens upstream dictates what comes out of the tap. Logging, gravel mining, roads, and development all change how our watersheds store and release water. Local governments are responsible for safe drinking water, but they have almost no say over the land it comes from. A watershed board provides that voice, with a mandate that ensures local people make decisions or directly inform them.

Earlier this month, the SCRD sponsored a UBCM resolution, passed by local governments across BC, calling on the Province to establish a framework and long-term funding for local watershed boards.

We don't have to wait until the next water emergency. The SCCA is ready and willing to coordinate watershed tables and convene stakeholders in shíshálh and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh territories, so stretched local governments don't have to carry the initial organizing.

Question

If elected, will you commit your local government to supporting local watershed boards, and to sending one elected official and one senior staff member to the watershed table for your area as a first step? Please answer yes or no.

Sechelt

Yes. I would totally commit to a watershed board. The need for watershed-based planning, knowing this is how all of Alberta has been planned for a long time.

As Mayor, I would also sit on the SCRD and champion this, as Sechelt should. It is our responsibility to protect the public interest and ensure that all planning for development, around our jurisdiction and beyond, is in conjunction with careful tracking and planning for the conservation and sharing of water. As Mayor, I would also establish a Sechelt Sustainability Standing (that is permanent) Committee.

Yes.

I would support Sechelt participating in a local watershed table and appointing an elected representative to it.

I would also support senior staff participation, subject to Council approving the staff time and resources required to do it properly. I don't want us committing staff without also giving them the capacity to meaningfully participate.

This also builds on work that's already happened regionally. The SCRD has done extensive work in the past around watershed protection and governance, and we've continued having conversations about looking at water and land management from a whole-watershed perspective rather than dealing with pieces of it on their own.

And I think any watershed governance model that we expect to work here needs to be developed in conjunction with the shíshálh Nation.

Yes. I believe a water board of sort is forming on the Sunshine Coast, considering the Water Summit series of meetings that the Shishalh Nation organized in 2023/2024 with each of the municipal and regional governments (and later to include the Skw_wu_7meshU_xwumixw Nation), on the southern Sunshine Coast. Both elected representatives and senior staff were involved. Although the SCRD will continue to hold the water license to provide potable water, all significant stewardship measures are taken in collaboration with these stakeholders.

In general I would support sending an elected official and a staff member to a Sunshine Coast Watershed Board. At this point, I’m not sure why this is not a responsibility of the SCRD, I’m sure someone will educate me on this, and when I understand the cost to the District of Sechelt I will be able to move forward with more certainty. For example:Is the expectation that the province picks up stipend costs? Would motions from the Watershed Board trump local governments views?

Yes. I would support the District of Sechelt participating in local watershed boards and would support having an elected official and senior staff member participate in the watershed table. Water security requires cooperation across municipal boundaries, with the SCRD, shíshálh Nation, the Province and other stakeholders. What happens throughout a watershed can directly affect our drinking water, so decisions need to be made collaboratively and with long-term water security in mind.

Gibsons

Yes, we will continue to be a provincial leader in advocating for watershed boards (I met with the Minister last week about this very topic at UBCM). We’ve been recognized by successive ministers of WLRS as the most natural municipality/region to take on the next board through the Water Sustainability Act, and I’ve presented on the topic at a three-person UBCM panel with colleagues from the Okanagan Basin Water Board and the Cowichan Watershed Board. The Province is looking to local governments to coordinate with their local First Nations to initiate these boards and we are doing that work, collaborating with Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw to submit an application to the Watershed Security Fund next month. We certainly intend to engage related non-profits such as the SCCA.

YES. Watershed security has long been one of my top priorities. Through the Source to Sea Project, the Town examined natural assets across the entire Aquifer 560 watershed, from its recharge zone on Mount Elphinstone to the ocean.

This watershed lies within the territory of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw and includes Crown and SCRD lands, so no single government can protect it alone. That's why the Town signed the Aquifer 560 Watershed Agreement with the SCRD in 2023, and has advocated to the Province for collaborative watershed governance.

Our new OCP commits us to partner with the Squamish Nation, the SCRD and the Province on watershed protection, governance and co-management. I will support Council sending an elected official and a senior staff member to the watershed table.

Yes. I would support the Town of Gibsons participating in a local watershed board and having an elected representative and appropriate senior staff participate in the watershed table.

Water security is incredibly important to our community, and I think decisions about our watersheds are stronger when the people and governments affected by them are part of the conversation. What happens outside municipal boundaries can still have a direct impact on our water, ecosystems and community.

I also think this kind of approach creates an opportunity for local governments, First Nations, community organizations, land users and other stakeholders to share information and work together rather than addressing water issues separately.

For me, supporting a watershed board would be about collaboration, good information and taking a longer-term approach to protecting our water.

Yes.

I would send one elected official and one senior staff member to the watershed table.

Aquifer 560 does not stop at Gibsons’ boundaries. It extends into the SCRD and supplies 100% of our drinking water. What happens outside the Town can affect our water, so coordination matters.

We already have a good example. In 2023, Gibsons and the SCRD signed the Aquifer 560 Watershed Agreement to coordinate monitoring, aquifer protection, water-supply planning and emergency response. The Town’s updated aquifer model also uses groundwater-monitoring data from the SCRD. Sharing information gives us a better picture of what is happening underground.

I would take the same approach at a watershed table. Hydrological studies, environmental monitoring, mapping and technical analysis are expensive. If Gibsons, the SCRD, and First Nations need the same information, we should share data and costs rather than pay for duplicate studies. We can also identify monitoring gaps and pursue outside funding together where it makes sense.

If we choose not to participate, our existing protections remain. But Gibsons would not have an elected representative and senior staff member at the table when broader watershed issues are discussed. I think we should have a voice in decisions that may affect our water.

Participating does not mean committing Gibsons to fund a permanent watershed board. The 2026 UBCM resolution asks the Province to establish a framework and provide stable, long-term funding. If Gibsons is eventually asked to contribute, I would want to see the mandate, decision-making structure, cost, available funding and whether it duplicates anything we already pay for before making that commitment.

I support taking the first step. We should be at the table, particularly when the decisions being discussed could affect our water.

Yes. This is a genuinely low-cost, high-value commitment: the SCCA is offering to do the convening, and Gibsons already has a working model for exactly this kind of collaboration through the Aquifer 560 watershed agreement with the SCRD and the Squamish Nation. Sending one elected official and one senior staff member to the table is a small ask with real upside, and 74% public support tells me this isn't a fringe position.

When I worked as Environmental Coordinator of for the City of Port Coquitlam, I sat on the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable, which was (and still is) a remarkable organization that brought together local governments, the Kwikwetlem First Nation, the DFO, industry, developers, arts and culture organizations, and conservation groups to work together to protect and enhance the Coquitlam River while maintaining viable industrial, economic, and social activities in its environs. Having this diverse group made it more effective in creating, and advocating for strategies around watershed protection that benefited all parties.

There is no reason why a similar model should not be adopted on the Sunshine Coast ensure our riparian assets are managed to balance often conflicting interests to deliver outcomes that benefit a broad set of values. If elected, I would happily participate alongside staff in the relevant local board to ensure our municipal representation.

Christine Alexander (Director, Area A, Pender Harbour / Egmont)

Sunshine Coast Regional District

Yes if shishalh and Squamish Nations are supportive. As sponsor of the UBCM resolution, I am very much in favour of establishing collaborative watershed tables: they have proven to be highly effective in other regions, and in the case of the Cowichan Watershed Board, has also advanced reconciliation efforts and promoted better overall collaboration, education and advocacy to higher levels of government. We are stronger together, and collaboration would lead to better outcomes for us and future generations.

Yes. Protection of our watershed is critical to the continued success of our ground water sources. The future of our alpine lake has proven to be unpredictable with the climate crisis playing havoc with our weather patterns, so ground water sources are all the more important. A specific board to oversee these critical natural resources is something I wholeheartedly support. Our staff are among the very best in the field and understand the situation well, they would be a critical part of any future watershed board.

Kate-Louise Stamford (Director, Area F, West Howe Sound)

Question 3: Green Bylaws for the Sunshine Coast

Background

In July 2024, the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre released "Green Bylaws for the Sunshine Coast," commissioned by the SCCA and the Halfmoon Bay Community Development Forum to guide updates to Official Community Plans (OCPs) on the lower Sunshine Coast.

The report recommends ways for local governments to protect the environment using existing powers, such as a Regional Conservation Strategy, updated ecosystem maps, Environmental Development Permit Areas, and growth management that steers development away from sensitive ecosystems.

The three local governments are at different stages. Gibsons adopted its new OCP in January 2026. Sechelt is drafting a plan that the next council is expected to finalize. The SCRD is merging seven OCPs into one, with a public hearing expected in late 2027.

Once adopted, these plans will shape how the coast grows for the next 20 years and beyond.

Question

Will you commit to using the Green Bylaws recommendations in your OCP and bylaws? Yes or no, and which one would you act on first?

Sechelt

Yes, I will commit to using green bylaws recommendations in the OCP and bylaws. Green bylaws have been promoted for several decades. Our OCP review is currently underway so I would start with that first.

It should include a visionary and extensive system of greenways including environmental and trail and pathway areas. I did this in Greater Victoria developing the greenways system there with 13 municipal agencies. We need stronger and wider protections for streams and other bodies of water. I would also integrate aspects of Sechelt Nation land stewardship as well as the system of parks and uses relating to the Sunshine Coast Community Forest, Provincial parks, and the SCRD, etc.

Yes.

The first recommendation I would want us to act on is updating our sensitive ecosystem mapping.

If we're going to make good decisions in the new OCP about where growth should go, where Environmental Development Permit Areas should apply, and what areas need stronger protection, we need current information about what is actually on the ground.

The Green Bylaws report specifically identifies updated sensitive ecosystem mapping as a foundation for long-term planning.

That also fits well with work Sechelt already has underway. The District is developing its new OCP now, and we've just secured grant funding for a new Urban Forest Plan that will include updated mapping and climate-resilience planning.

We can accommodate new growth while still being much more intentional about steering development away from our sensitive ecosystems.

Yes I will commit to being guided by the Green Bylaws. The 43 page document sent does not reference the provincial governments housing mandate to municipalities which was first issued late in 2023 about the time this report was being written, so not sure if any changes are required to the Green Bylaw report to accommodate a mandate that means faster growth? Hopefully not.
Protecting critical ecosystems is referenced many times in the report and I assume it’s upon local governments to identify those most critical?Humanity across the world is grappling with this issue as the human population continues to expand and require more of the earths resources to sustain ourselves, so we know we have to grow our housing supply and assorted structures to support a growing population. Consequently, we need to do that with minimal harm to our natural systems and other species and at times difficult decisions will have to be made.

I’m in favour of green bylaws, but bylaws are not technically found in the Oﬃcial Community Plan, which is more of a guideline rather than legislation. Aligning the regional district’s OCP’s would be my first order of business. Kudos to the SCRD for recognizing the importance of alignment in order to achieve other goals. If this is not possible than a unified vision statement would be acceptable.

Yes. I would start with Recommendation 2.1: updating sensitive-ecosystem maps to guide our Official Community Plan and bylaws.

I would check what information we already have, update it and fill the gaps. We should consider sensitive ecosystems, streams, wildlife corridors, climate risks and infrastructure together when deciding where development belongs.

I would use this information to improve environmental development permit requirements, protect sensitive areas and direct growth toward suitable land with services.

I would also ask whether our protections are working, what needs to improve and how we will measure progress.

Yes. I would support using the Green Bylaws recommendations when reviewing and updating Sechelt’s Official Community Plan and bylaws.

The first area I would focus on is strengthening the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, particularly our streams, wetlands, shorelines and important wildlife habitat. I would support reviewing our Development Permit Area guidelines to ensure they reflect current environmental information and best practices, while providing clear and reasonable expectations for property owners and development.

Protecting these areas is not only about conservation—it can also help protect water quality, manage stormwater and reduce the impacts of flooding and erosion as our community grows.

I would need to look deeper into the Green Bylaws, however from my preliminary view it looks like more government over-reach, bureaucracy and adding to the cost of building a home and infrastructure. For example, I do not think EV's are superior for the environment in comparison to combustion engine vehicles, I actually think they are the opposite. Therefore I think the science is not settled on these green indicatives being as green as people think they are. Additionally, I do not think Canadian oil and gas is horrible. In Canada we have the highest environmental standards, along with safety and they are good paying jobs that Canadians desperately need. Our current model of getting oil and gas from OPEC (dictatorship oil with low environmental and labour laws) or getting it sent back from the states is poor management. Lastly, for heating homes, fireplaces are great for one gets to clean up their yard or the brush off the logging roads and heat their home with a deeper heat than what is given through heat pumps or gas.

Yes. I would support using appropriate Green Bylaws recommendations in Sechelt's OCP and bylaws. My first priority would be comprehensive environmental and ecosystem mapping so that we clearly understand what areas are environmentally sensitive and need protection before making long-term development decisions. I support growth, but I believe we need to understand our environmental constraints and infrastructure capacity so we can direct growth responsibly while protecting the natural systems that make Sechelt a great place to live.

Gibsons

YES:

I mentioned earlier the incentives for filming in the community to go green. One hour of film or TV production generates 72 tons of carbon. Having camlock tie ins in popular film locations would eliminate the need for diesel generators in those locations, while also providing the potential power for other venues. With new construction I am always promoting carshare in the project, reducing the parking requirements and tie ins for EV’s. The potential of solar for lighting in common areas are but a few of the issues I have and will continue to promote.

YES. Gibsons has just adopted a new OCP that already reflects many of the Green Bylaws Toolkit's recommendations. It protects a 50-metre marine shoreline and eelgrass zone, keeps hard surfaces out of buffers next to sensitive areas, and requires coastal development to consider Green Shores approaches. Rather than reopen the OCP, I will champion putting it into action through our bylaws and strategies.

I commit to supporting the update of our Tree Preservation Bylaw, a priority of our Urban Forest Implementation Plan, and to working towards the Foreshore Strategy called for in our OCP, one that addresses climate change and sea level rise and incorporates the Green Shores guidelines.

Yes. I would support using the Green Bylaws recommendations as we continue to implement our new OCP and consider future Town bylaws. One area I would want to look at first is making sure our sensitive ecosystem mapping is current, and then looking at whether our Environmental Development Permit Areas are providing the protection we need. I think good decisions start with good information, particularly when we are making choices about where and how our community grows.

Yes.

I would use the Green Bylaws recommendations as a benchmark for our OCP and bylaws. My first step would be to identify what Gibsons already addresses and where gaps remain. The first recommendation I would pursue is regional conservation planning.

Gibsons just completed a major OCP and Zoning Bylaw update, including Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Aquifer Protection and Geohazard Development Permit Areas. The Town also updated its environmental mapping using existing data, LiDAR and field assessments by professional biologists. I would build on that work rather than duplicate it.

Regional conservation planning makes sense because ecosystems do not stop at municipal boundaries. Creeks, forests, wildlife corridors and watersheds extend beyond Gibsons. If we only look within our boundaries, we can miss how sensitive areas connect to the larger environment.

The South Okanagan-Similkameen is a good example. Its regional mapping identified important ecosystems and wildlife connections that crossed local government boundaries, including areas under development pressure. The regional picture gave local governments information about those connections before making land-use decisions.

Good mapping can also benefit development. Knowing where sensitive areas are early gives developers better information before they invest considerable time and money in a project. It means fewer surprises and better information before decisions are made.

For Gibsons, I would not redo the OCP or environmental mapping we just completed. I would work with First Nations, the SCRD, and other local governments to bring together existing information and identify what is missing. Where additional study is needed, we could share costs and pursue outside funding.

A regional strategy would give us a broader picture; it would not automatically create new regulations. If new information identifies an important gap in our environmental protections, Council can consider what action is warranted.

I see Green Bylaws as a tool to make informed decisions: understand what we have, know what is at risk, and give the community better information before decisions are made.

Yes, and I'd act on the forest beside Sunnycrest Mall and White Tower Park first. Gibsons is a small town, and once we lose our last pieces of forest within town boundaries, we don't get them back. I'd rather find the right tool and use it properly than make a promise that could get undone by a future council. (As a law student, I competed on Ireland's team at the Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition, on a case centred on biodiversity, so this isn't a new interest for me.)

No. As a farmer with a deep connection to the land I work I would be hesitant to commit to any additional bylaw recommendations as these are often broadly addressed. There are many people in our area with expertise and understanding of the particular land they inhabit and I would not want to impose additional stress from a central position. The bylaw recommendations are worth considering but they are worth considering directly with the people affected and not in a boardroom.

The Green Bylaws Toolkit should be rather uncontroversial – It lays out a way of drafting municipal regulations that protect green infrastructure and the benefits they confer to the community. To create bylaws that don’t capture this is to ‘leave money on the table’ so to speak – it generates outcomes that deliver less total value to the community when externalities are taken into account (e.g. how allowing for unlimited tree cutting lowers water interception, which requires larger, more expensive stormwater infrastructure).

The positive for Gibsons is that the principles laid out in the Green Bylaws Toolkit are already in use in many of our municipal regulation, such as those for aquifer and groundwater protection, riparian and streamside protection, and tree protection. One, however, that has not been implemented a comprehensive way yet is that for marine shoreline protection. Given the risks presented by rising sea levels to the town, Gibsons should be looking to better manage development and landscaping along the waterfront to ensure protection not just for the properties being developed, but also the community, and the ecosystems behind them.

Christine Alexander (Director, Area A, Pender Harbour / Egmont)

Yes. Gibsons has a head start here, with our environmentally sensitive area mapping updated in 2023 and a new OCP adopted in January. The impacts on our environment are not limited to the area within the town boundaries, and a plan that protects nature within our boundaries but ignores what is next door does not work.

What I would act on first is a Regional Conservation Strategy. The SCRD is merging the seven electoral area OCPs into one, and this makes the next two years a prime opportunity to collaborate on and produce shared conservation goals for the entire lower Coast. I would bring one forward within my first year, and work with our regional partners and Town Council to push for this strategy.

Sunshine Coast Regional District

Yes. The harmonization of the OCPs offers great opportunities to strengthen environmental protection and plan regionally. Adopting a regional conservation strategy would be an invaluable addition to regional planning, but one recommendation that could be acted on first would be supporting connectivity through zoning, EDPAs and conservation covenants. These could be worked into the OCP and zoning bylaw now without requiring an additional strategy.

Yes, as part of the OCP renewal we have a chance to enact cohesive, coast wide ecosystem protections and get them baked into the combined OCP. Watershed, riparian and forest protections, if included, will help to protect the natural world we depend on for our very existence. Over the last 4 years the SCRD has come a long way in the changes to our land use policies that limit the impact of human development on the land, and I will continue to support these initiatives. The rubber will truly hit the road in the first quarter of 2027 when the draft OCP will be presented, at which time there will be a chance to make the necessary changes to create a document that represents the needs and vision for the future of the citizens of the Sunshine Coast.

Kate-Louise Stamford (Director, Area F, West Howe Sound)

Question 4: Sunshine Coast Community Forest Expansion

Background

The Sunshine Coast Community Forest (SCCF) is owned by the District of Sechelt and manages about 10,800 hectares of public forest in shíshálh swiya. The SCCA opposed its creation in 2006, and for years we were its fiercest critic. The tenure was logged hard.

That has changed. SCCF now practices ecosystem-based management. It has extended its commitment not to log in the Chapman watershed or log old-growth, and has stopped logging sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems. It is focused on restoration, wildfire mitigation, and trails, and has been exploring carbon revenue from standing forests. The SCCF now prioritizes recovery and sustainable management over shareholder dividends.

SCCF has asked the Province to expand into BCTS tenure area on Mount Elphinstone, and has committed to supporting the SCCA's watershed management proposals there. Expansion would put the rest of the Chapman community watershed into local control.

The SCCF has invited the shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, Gibsons, and the SCRD to become partners, along with the District of Sechelt, in the Community Forest. A request backed by every government on the Lower Coast would be hard for Victoria to refuse.

Our forests should be managed by the communities that depend on them.

Question

If you are elected, will you support and advocate for the following three steps? Please answer yes or no to each, and explain why.

1. Lock in these conditions for the Community Forest's mandate and any expansion:

a. Ecosystem-based management

b. No logging in the Chapman, old growth, or sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems

c. 30 percent protection of every biogeoclimatic zone

d. Continued investment in watershed assessment and restoration

e. No more special dividends to the shareholder

2. Support the Community Forest's request to the Province to expand its tenure onto Mount Elphinstone, replacing BC Timber Sales logging there.

3. Support the Community Forest's invitation for the shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, the Town of Gibsons and the SCRD to join the District of Sechelt as partners.

Sechelt

Yes. Ecosystem-based management needs to be shown to be put into practice.
Logging in watersheds is not acceptable especially since we plan to keep on drinking the Chapman water. Old growth and sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems cannot have logging since they are already subjected to too many man-made stressors.
30% protection is every bioclimate zone may not be enough. 50% or more protection can be justified in vulnerable areas that need habitat protection.
Watershed assessments need to be incorporated (eg. Wilson Creek) whether they are specially financed by the SCCF or not. Restoration is where the money needs to go.
I would not be against stopping the practice of giving special dividends to the shareholder or community groups. All of the money is needed go to environmental and sustainability projects related to what remains of our forests and maybe to help removing fire hazards within and around Sechelt for starters.

2. The District of Sechelt has given some initial support to the request as it was requested by the SCCF. However, I think it is important to have buy in first from the environmental groups, First Nations, the SCRD, the Town of Gibsons, etc. before advancing any more steps in terms of expansion. I doubt if they will get it.

3. Yes, I support the Community Forest’s invitation to join the DOS as partners but a much more concerted effort must be made unlike last time when the SCCF was created. However, inviting and truly working together, to create honest partnerships, are two different things. If there is not widespread support and consensus, then maybe the First Nations groups can take the expansion opportunity and more sustainably manage the lands with their cultural knowledge and practices. They may even be able to help us with the Community Forest in general, if the current SCCF structure and approach is no longer viable.

My answers are no, yes, and yes.

On the first one, my answer is no as it's currently asked, but that's specifically because I don't support permanently ruling out future special dividends from the SCCF.

I absolutely support ecosystem-based management, protecting the Chapman watershed, old growth and sensitive ecosystems, the 30 percent protection target, and continued investment in watershed assessment and restoration.

I've sat as Sechelt's shareholder representative for eight years and watched the Community Forest make that transition. I think it was the right direction.

But Sechelt also takes on the liability, responsibility and public scrutiny that comes with owning a forestry operation. If, after meeting those ecological commitments and investing properly in restoration and resilience, the Community Forest eventually generates a sustainable surplus, I think the broader community should be able to continue to benefit from that too.

The Legacy Fund has supported non-profit and community projects all over the Coast, and I don't want to permanently close the door on that.

On expansion onto Mount Elphinstone, yes. I'd rather see those lands under accountable local management using ecosystem-based principles rather than the business as usual approach of BCTS.

And yes to expanding the partnership. I support inviting the shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, Gibsons and the SCRD to have a role in that future.

1a. The SCCF already utilizes Ecosystem-based management practices.

1b. I would need to better understand what “…sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems..”, would represent in terms of land area of the SCCF.

1c. I would need to see the mapping of these zones before agreeing as I don’t know the implication of this restriction on SCCF operations.

1d. Yes. There is still valuable work to be done on watershed restoration.

1e. No. Eliminating special dividends may result in the District (and any future partners), stopping further investment in expanding the SCCF, which is counterproductive to extending better forest stewardship practices to more land on the Sunshine Coast.

2. Yes. If Mt. Elphinstone is the actual area the SCCF wishes to expand to, I will support this effort.

3. Yes, there is already substantial cooperation between the SCCF and Shishalh Nation on forestry practices. I will support adding the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw Nation and Town of Gibsons on any expansion of the SCCF subject to an acceptable cost sharing agreement.

1a. Yes. We need to manage the forest based on a number of factors, including the type of ecological system. This varies throughout our forest network.

1b. Yes. We need to protect our watersheds, the remaining old growth, and varying ecosystems to ensure the overall health of the area.

1c. Yes. This will mean that some of each zone can continue in a healthy way, and if there are more climate impacts we will have a larger buffer for each zone.

1d. Yes. We rely on our watersheds. We need to know what they need to be healthy and able to replenish. This will affect how we harvest.

1e. Yes. Dividends should go to the whole coast, as any logging affects the entire swiya.

2. Yes. I believe the more local control we have over our resources, the better management we can achieve that benefits the local community.

3. Yes. What happens in the forest affects everyone, all the local governments should be partners and have input into how Community Forests operates.

For part one of question #4, I will generally support all of the points provided from a-e assuming we are able to incorporate all of these points into the OCP, and trickling down to our needs for some development and as long as we are not adding more cost to our local businesses.
On part 2, it seems reasonable to support but I don’t have the full picture in terms of the other party’s and for me to make a decision I like to hear both sides. That’s the democratic way.
On part 3 I am supportive because it simply makes sense to have all affected levels of government at the table. I will give my final answer once I understand the cost of this initiative if any?

I will mandate for ecosystem based management because it is collaborative in nature. No logging should be permitted in Chapman Creek: not only does it provide our drinking water but salmon are also reliant on it. Old growth,sensi/ve and underrepresented ecosystems need to be protected as they are becoming rare and endangered. Thirty percent protection of every biogeoclimatic zone is crucial, as the environment is changing rapidly this century. Watersheds are the lifeblood of a region, so their assessment and restoration is critical. Finally, the transactional nature of shareholder dividends is at odds with protecting a forest.

I would support Community Forest’s tenure expansion onto Mount Elphinstone – the pride of Gibsons. A local landmark at 1266 metres covering 141 hectares.

I would encourage the Town of Gibsons, SCRD, Shishalh and Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw Na/ons to join Sechelt and the Community Forest. We are much stronger together.

1a. Yes, provided it does not create economic hardship for local communities. Environmental and economic needs must be balanced.

1b. Yes, there should be more care taken in sensitive watershed locations.

1c. Yes, I support 30x30.

1d. Yes.

1e. No more special dividends to the shareholder – I would first clarify whether the intent is to reinvest special dividends in the Community Forest. Before deciding, I would review how Sechelt has used them in the past, as they could also fund housing land or other urgent environmental needs.

2. Yes – I would prefer to see the majority of logging on the coast performed by the Community Forest.

3. Yes. The Nations are essential partners whose values emphasize long-term environmental stewardship.

1. Yes. I support ecosystem-based management; no logging in the Chapman watershed, old growth, or sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems; protection of at least 30 percent of each biogeoclimatic zone within the Community Forest; continued funding for watershed assessment and restoration; and ending special dividends to the shareholder.

These protections should be written into governing documents and agreements with the Province and First Nations. Protected areas should be mapped. Thirty percent should be a minimum, not a limit.

I would seek a clear financial plan to fund ongoing forest care. Forest management should not depend on providing extra revenue to the District.

2. Yes, provided the same protections apply to the expanded area.

I support bringing forest decisions closer to the communities that depend on them. Expansion should improve protection and restoration, not simply increase logging.

I would seek clear boundaries, enforceable conditions, watershed assessments and a sound financial plan. This must respect First Nations’ rights and title and provincial responsibilities.

3. Yes. I support inviting the shíshálh Nation, the Town of Gibsons and the SCRD to join Sechelt as partners.

The partners should decide together how the Community Forest is governed, with clear roles, financial responsibilities, a process for resolving disagreements and public reporting.

First Nations’ rights, title and decision-making roles must be respected. Each partner must choose whether and how to participate.

1. YES. I support ecosystem-based management and strong protections for the Chapman watershed, old growth, and sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems. I also support the goal of protecting at least 30% of each biogeoclimatic zone and continued investment in watershed assessment and restoration. These measures help protect biodiversity, water quality and the long-term health of our forests. I would also support ending special dividends so that funds can be directed toward responsible forest management, restoration and long-term community benefit.

2. YES. I support advocating to the Province for this expansion, provided that strong environmental standards, Indigenous rights and meaningful community consultation remain central to the process. Expanding community forestry provides an opportunity for more local involvement and accountability in decisions affecting our forests.

3. YES. I support working toward a broader partnership. Our forests, watersheds and ecosystems extend beyond municipal boundaries, and their long-term stewardship benefits from collaboration. Bringing local governments and First Nations together can strengthen regional decision-making while ensuring that Indigenous rights and title are respected and that governance remains transparent and accountable.

1. Yes. I support ecosystem-based management and strong protection for the Chapman watershed, old-growth forests, and sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems. I also support continued investment in watershed assessment and restoration. Any changes to the Community Forest's mandate should maintain strong environmental protections while ensuring decisions remain financially responsible and transparent to the public.

2. Yes. I would support advocating for the Community Forest to expand onto Mount Elphinstone, provided the expansion operates under strong environmental protections and ecosystem-based management principles.

3. Yes. I support the invitation for the shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, the Town of Gibsons and the SCRD to become partners. Managing forests and watersheds that cross jurisdictional boundaries requires cooperation, and meaningful Indigenous partnership should be part of that process.

Gibsons

Yes, I support the expansion of a Community Forest to the Gibsons Area/Mt. Elphinstone with, for us, the most logical partners to begin the conversation being the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw and the Sunshine Coast Community Forest (and if SCCF smoothly secures partnerships with the shíshálh Nation and SCRD, wonderful). The specific conditions of the partnership need to be negotiated so I would not be negotiating in good faith if I were to “lock in” conditions ahead of time. I appreciate that future members of my Council may answer these questions affirmatively but as a mayor working on their and our community’s behalf, I have a responsibility to go into a negotiation of a partnership with an open mind, to both the positions of my councillors and to our partners’ positions.

1a. YES - the Community Forest has displayed better forest management

1b. YES – although an issue with the Chapman is a SCRD issue so it would depend on who is appointed as the alternate to the board – it makes no sense to log in areas where drinking water is accumulated or recharged as is the case with the Gibsons Aquifer

1c. YES – we are losing biodiversity and natural habitat far too quickly we experience this daily with the bears, deer, and other wildlife that are driven into the urban areas looking for food.

1d. YES – from my first term I have always supported the research, maping and work being done to protect our aquifer. Not only our aquifer but other sources of potable water. I will also advocate for stream and natural waterway restoration.

1e. YES: One thing I would like to encourage is investment in Canada, currently we have little say about what goes on, as the board room is not in Canada. We need to encourage Canadians to invest in Canada for the long term gain for the benefit of all .

2. YES.

I would rather see the Community forest working in our community than an outside company that has no interest other than profit.

We know if one of the major local employers is to survive they need a source of material. I also feel that we need to stop exporting raw materials that could be processed here. I believe that the Community Forest practices much better practices.

3. YES: I believe my answer above also covers this

1. YES. These conditions match the values Gibsons has built into its own planning: ecosystem-based management, protection of old growth and sensitive ecosystems, and continued investment in watershed health. Forests are natural assets that protect our drinking water, reduce wildfire risk and store carbon. If Gibsons becomes a partner, I will advocate that these conditions guide the expanded Community Forest, and that its revenues be reinvested in ecosystem and groundwater research, forest stewardship and community benefit.

2. YES. Mount Elphinstone's forested slopes recharge Aquifer 560, Gibsons' drinking water source. Decisions about those lands should be made locally, by the communities who depend on them, with ecological values and watershed protection as priorities. I have long advocated for watershed security and co-governance, and community management of Mount Elphinstone is a natural step in that direction.

3. YES. I am encouraged by the Community Forest's invitation and by the opportunity for partnership and representation on its board. A collaborative community forest, guided by respect for Indigenous rights and title, and bringing together the knowledge of the Nations and all our communities, would give Gibsons a voice in managing the forests and watersheds we rely on. I look forward to Council exploring this partnership.

1. Yes. I support maintaining strong environmental conditions as part of the Community Forest’s mandate and any future expansion, including ecosystem-based management, protection of the Chapman watershed, old growth and sensitive ecosystems, continued watershed assessment and restoration, and strong conservation targets.

For me, water protection is a very important part of this. As climate change puts more pressure on our water systems, I think we need to be especially thoughtful about how forests in important watershed and aquifer recharge areas are managed.

2. Yes. I support the Community Forest’s request to expand its tenure onto Mount Elphinstone and replace BC Timber Sales logging there.

I support having more local involvement in decisions about forests that are directly connected to our communities, ecosystems and water supply. The Mount Elphinstone area is particularly important because of concerns around aquifer recharge and long-term water security. I would support a model that keeps strong environmental protections in place while allowing for responsible community forest management.

3. Yes. I support the Town of Gibsons participating in discussions about becoming a partner in the Community Forest with the District of Sechelt, shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx ̱ wú7mesh Úxwumixw and the SCRD.

I think there is real value in having the communities and Nations that are affected by these decisions involved in how the forest is managed. At the same time, before the Town formally enters into a partnership, I would want Council and the public to clearly understand the governance structure, financial responsibilities, risks and decision-making process.

Overall, I see this as an opportunity to strengthen local stewardship, protect water and ecosystems, and make long-term decisions about our forests with the people and communities who depend on them.

1. Yes.

I support ecosystem-based management; no logging in the Chapman watershed, old growth, or sensitive and underrepresented ecosystems; 30 percent protection of every biogeoclimatic zone; continued investment in watershed assessment and restoration; and no more special dividends to the shareholders.

I support these conditions because I want environmental protection built into the Community Forest's mandate from the outset. A Community Forest is still a working forest, but local management gives us more opportunity to decide what we protect, where harvesting can occur, and how we balance forestry with watershed protection, biodiversity, wildfire resilience, recreation and local economic benefits.

The Sunshine Coast Community Forest has already moved in this direction. It uses ecosystem-based management and has made commitments around conservation, old growth and watershed protection. If the Community Forest expands, I want those expectations established from the beginning rather than expanding first and deciding what needs protection afterward.

I also support ending special dividends to the shareholders. Those dividends have funded important community projects, and I would not want to lose that benefit. I would advocate for the new governance model to include a replacement grant program so that when there is surplus after the Community Forest has met its environmental, operational, and long-term financial needs, some of that money can continue to support community priorities such as affordable housing, recreation, restoration, or community infrastructure.

For me, these conditions allow us to protect important environmental values while maintaining a working forest that can continue to provide economic and community benefits.

2. Yes.

I support asking the Province to expand the Community Forest onto Mount Elphinstone under the environmental conditions outlined above.

Mount Elphinstone matters to Gibsons for several reasons. Aquifer 560 supplies all of the Town’s drinking water, and the Charman, Chaster, Gibson, and Soames Creek watersheds originate on Mount Elphinstone. The Town’s watershed planning recognizes the forests, wetlands, surface water and geology above the aquifer as parts of a connected natural system.

That does not mean forestry or development cannot occur on Mount Elphinstone. It means we should understand the land and protect important environmental values when deciding where and how those activities occur.

A Community Forest would still be a working forest. The difference is that it gives local communities more opportunity to influence how the forest is managed and to balance watershed protection, biodiversity, wildfire resilience and recreation with forestry and economic activity.

Before finalizing an expansion, I would want to know exactly which lands are included and how they overlap with aquifer recharge areas, watersheds, old and mature forests, sensitive ecosystems, recreation areas, and existing harvest plans. That gives us a clearer picture of what needs protection and where responsible harvesting can continue.

This also has an economic side. Forestry already supports employment, and I would want an expanded Community Forest to create opportunities for local contractors and workers wherever possible. Forest management also involves silviculture, restoration, road work and wildfire-resilience projects. Keeping more of that activity local means more of the economic benefit stays on the Sunshine Coast.

If we do not pursue the expansion, BCTS can continue managing Crown forestry in these areas, and local governments can continue providing input through the referral process. I support pursuing Community Forest tenure because it gives local communities a more direct role in decisions about forests that matter to us.

I would also expect transparent reporting on environmental outcomes, watershed and restoration work, wildfire resilience, local employment and contracting, and financial performance.

I want Mount Elphinstone managed in a way that protects important environmental values while continuing to support responsible forestry, local employment and the economic needs of our community.

3. Yes.

I support Gibsons participating in discussions with the shíshálh Nation, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw, the District of Sechelt and the SCRD about becoming partners in a broader Community Forest.

The model has not been decided yet. SCCF says no decisions have been made about partnership, governance or final operating areas. If Gibsons is considering becoming a partner, I want us involved while those decisions are being made rather than after the model has already been developed.

There is also an established operation to build on. SCCF has managed a Community Forest for 20 years and already has forestry expertise, planning and public engagement processes and an operating organization. I would look at how a broader partnership could use that existing capacity rather than duplicate it.

A broader partnership could bring environmental and economic benefits. A broader partnership could give First Nations and local governments a greater role in forest and watershed management, restoration and wildfire resilience. It could also create opportunities to keep more forestry-related spending and contracting local. SCCF reports more than $36 million in local spending over its first 20 years, including $1.38 million with local businesses and contractors in 2025.

My yes does not mean committing Gibsons to an unknown financial arrangement. Before agreeing to the final structure, I would want to understand Gibsons' decision-making role, costs and liabilities, and how revenues would be shared or reinvested. I would also want clear environmental, economic and community objectives so we can measure the results.

I support pursuing the partnership because it gives Gibsons a greater local role in decisions about forests that matter to our community, helps protect our environment and creates opportunities to keep more economic activity on the Sunshine Coast.

1. Yes, to locking in all five conditions. Ecosystem-based management, no logging in the Chapman, old growth, or sensitive ecosystems, 30% protection by biogeoclimatic zone, continued watershed investment, and no special shareholder dividends are specific, enforceable commitments, not vague intentions, and they match what the SCCF has apparently already been doing in practice.

2. Yes, to supporting the Mount Elphinstone expansion request. Worth being honest that this is an ask to the province, not a Gibsons decision, but local control of the rest of the Chapman watershed is squarely in this coast's interest.

3. Yes, to Gibsons joining as a partner alongside the SCRD, the shíshálh Nation, and the Squamish Nation. Both Nations' territory covers this watershed directly, and this is exactly the kind of coast-wide coordination, done right, that I'd want to be part of building.

1a. Yes, we cannot treat the forest as a spreadsheet. Logging is a particularly tough endeavour that requires a certain level of capability but we ought to create the necessary conditions so that the community can be involved in management. There are opportunities here to foster the next generation of environmentalists.

1b. I will support the will of our community. We have a wealth of educated and committed people concerning these matters and I will look to them for guidance.

1c. What makes 30 percent an effective rate? Why was this number chosen?

1d. Yes, this work helps secure our environment and provides employment.

1e. I need more context on this. Who is the shareholder in question and what is their level of involvement?

2. Yes, provided the Town of Gibsons joins the project

3. I will only speak regarding the Town of Gibsons, I support joining the project provided it can be managed fairly between the partners.

1a. Yes – Ecosystem-based management is a more inclusive approach to forest management in that it treats the forest as more than timber, and explicitly manages for a wider set of values, normally including grizzly bear habitat, salmon spawning areas, and old growth/forest structural complexity, and hydrological stability. Early research has shown that it has been effective in accomplishing these, and is preferable in, beyond its ecological benefits, that it delivers higher economic value when these benefits are internalized, compared to management for timber value alone.

1b. Yes – Chapman creek is a well-known spawning ground for chum, coho and pink salmon, as well as the location of our regional hatchery. While the exactly boundary of the protected area would need to be determined, we should not take undue risks with the important asset.

Currently Only ~3% of high value old growth remains in Southern coastal BC – we should not be logging it – on the Sunshine Coast or elsewhere. The same would apply to sensitive ecosystems.

Underrepresented ecosystems are a little more nuanced – just because a certain ecotype may be less common within a given area, it does not necessarily mean that it has higher value. It may well be that it is the result of human intervention, or may be disappearing because it is no longer adapted to a changing climate. This would have to be assessed on case-by-case basis. I wouldn’t have a blanket ban for logging on underrepresented types, but I would want them identified for special consideration, but protected if they are of unique value.

1c. Maybe – depends on the scale – is it by Forest unit? Timber licence? Harvest block? The larger the scale, the easier it is to maintain this minimum. I want to maintain a diverse forested landscape, but only if those forests are healthy and well-adapted to the climatic (and future climatic) conditions. In some cases we may want to ensure retention of more than 30% in order to ensure integrity of the ecosystem. I would say 30% is a reasonable general rule at larger scales, but only if that BEC zone is stable in light of climate change. We should be planning adaptively.

1d. Yes. This is one of the benefits of a community forest – you can manage it how you want to, and use the proceeds to reinvest in items of community benefit. Healthy watershed benefit wildlife, forests, and people. The better we understand them, the better we can manage them to ensure their continued health. We should also partner with the Ministry and research institutions so our learning can be useful to other areas and organizations looking to improve their own similar watersheds.

1e. Yes – My understanding is that special dividends from the ComFor aren’t really done anymore, but if any excess revenue is vacuumed up by the shareholder every 6 months, it makes it hard for the Community forest to be able to invest in forward planning or more innovative initiatives. Leaving something in the kitty to allow for the community forest to better manage its operations, and do more experimental, high value work, is preferrable to payouts that the shareholder may not even notice in the long run.

2. Yes – local assets are best managed locally, according to local needs, and aligning with local values. Mount Elphinstone is source of Gibsons’ (and parts of Area E’s) exceptional drinking water. Management of this by the local community means that protection of this water supply takes centre stage, rather than stumpage value. Further, it allows opens doors for more proactive wildfire prevention, rather than just fire suppression, to be part of forest management activities.

3. YES! Gibsons’ involvement in the Sunshine Coast Community Forest is one of my key priorities, as noted on the Policy page of my campaign website. There is strength in collaboration, and all of these communities have a stake in the management and health of forests on the Coast. Bringing them into the fold (should they want to be party), would help bring new ideas, energy, and resources to the SCCFs operations. It would also allow for better management of local forests specific to the needs of each local community. I hope the other communities will also seriously consider being involved.

Christine Alexander (Director, Area A, Pender Harbour / Egmont)

1. Yes. The Community Forest has proven that a forest can be managed for the long term while still supporting local jobs. These conditions should be written into its mandate so a future board can’t undo them, and revenues should go directly back into the forest and watershed, not dividends.

2. Yes. Gibsons gets all of our drinking water from Aquifer 560 and much of the recharge area sits on Mount Elphinstone, outside of Town limits. When an independent review highlighted a BC Timber Sales cutback as a risk to the recharge, Gibsons asked BCTS to pause, and BCTS said they couldn’t. When it comes to the decisions about the forest above our only source of drinking water, the people who are directly impacted by that should have a voice. Local control also means that the timber would be managed sustainably and support jobs here on the Coast, a more critical factor than before with the Howe Sound Pulp Mill idling.

3. Yes. Partnership will strengthen any request of Victoria and benefit the whole Lower Coast. Gibsons should be at the table as a partner, ensuring that the council reviews the terms to ensure it is fair for Gibsons.

Sunshine Coast Regional District

1. Yes. The more I learn about Community Forests, the more I see them as the future of forestry. Steered by the community they operate in, they adhere to local values, and keep the benefits of their operations in the community. Forestry can be done in a way that benefits the Coast by supporting ecosystem health, protecting watersheds, creating good employment and recreation activities, and supporting the region through grants and programs.

2. Yes. Community Forest puts control of forestry and watershed protection back into the community's hands. An expanded tenure would allow for better monitoring, protection of valued ecosystems, and higher transparency.

3. Yes. This would be a really positive step for the SCRD, and I am looking forward to the conversation!

1. Yes. I support ecosystem-based management, watershed and old-growth protection, restoration and long-term stewardship.

2. Yes. I support expansion onto Mount Elphinstone if those environmental protections apply to the expanded tenure.

3. Yes. I support broader partnership involving First Nations, the SCRD and other local governments. These forests and watersheds are regional assets and should be governed accordingly.

Since I first heard of the 30/30 initiative I have brought it up at every meeting where it needed to be part of the conversation, it is such an important idea. I had the opportunity to discuss the expansion of the Community Forest tenure into the BCTS area of the Coast with Warren Hanson of SCCF and this action looks promising and doable. Of course all concerned parties need to be at the table and I will always work to include our RD, Muni and FN governments as partners. Selective logging practices outside of parks and future parkland, as well as protecting old growth, our watershed and sensitive areas, combined with raw log export bans and investment in local value added businesses could be transformational for the Coast. Building ecotourism here should be a part of our future as well.