And now the Airport's lawyer is writing to North Saanich Council

 As reported in today's Times Colonist and CHEK TV, the airport’s lawyer sent a letter to council seeking to clarify Mayor Peter Jones’s comment about setting fire to something at the airport. This is all related to the North Saanich Council's inclusion of the Airport in its Official Community Plan (OCP). The airport sits on federal land, not district land, and so should not have been included in the OCP. The mayor, Peter Jones, made an offhand remark, which he called a joke, that offended the Airport Authority. 

When the OCP was passed at the District Council meeting, several Councillors were concerned with the inclusion of the airport. The Airport Authority subsequently asked that the OCP be amended to remove the Airport.

Once again, this mayor has put our community in the spotlight and not in a good way. The mayor should represent the values and interests of our community. They should be an upstanding representative and should shine a light on us that shows the nature of our community--a nature of cooperation, professionalism, and neighbourliness. We deserve better.

The full Times Colonist article can be found here: Heated talk: Transport Canada irked with North Saanich in airport land tussle

And the CHEK TV article here: North Saanich mayor’s comments trigger Victoria Airport Authority’s lawyers

Is the North Saanich District Council Dysfunctional?

 I remember early in its term, North Saanich Council was lumped in with Harrison Hot Springs and Kamloops as dysfunctional councils. I have been 'playing' with AI of late, and when I asked this question, Chat GPT replied with this (note the first-person reply!):

There’s credible evidence that many people believe the North Saanich council is exhibiting signs of dysfunction — though whether it is “dysfunctional” overall depends on how one defines that term. I’ll lay out some of the issues raised, what people are saying, and then give a rough assessment.

---

Issues & Complaints

Here are several recurring criticisms and conflicts involving North Saanich council:

1. Pickleball court controversy
• The council closed the Wain Park courts due to noise complaints, then later rejected motions to reopen them with sound mitigation, despite community pushback. Saanich News+3Times Colonist+3Chek News+3
• Some residents accuse the council of favouring a few complainants over the broader public interest. NS News+1
• There have been legal threats from community groups arguing the decision process lacked sufficient public input. Saanich News+1
2. Transparency, process, and public engagement concerns
• A planning consultant (Modus) resigned, citing a misalignment between what the public had expressed in engagement exercises, and the direction that council / advisor committees appeared to want. Times Colonist
• Critics (letters, etc.) have alleged that the council is operating with less openness, using private conversations, or restricting which voices are heard. Peninsula News Review+2Saanich News+2
3. Housing target issues
• North Saanich is at risk of missing provincially mandated housing targets; in one case, the first year target was 60 units, and only 6 net-new units were delivered. Vic News+1
• The province has expressed concern over “insufficient detail” in the district’s plans, and the council rejected some attempts to discuss or debate the minister’s letter on the subject. Times Colonist+1
4. Staff turnover, governance concerns
• The Chief Administrative Officer resigned, and there was a large severance/offer to leave ($300,000) amid what was called “ongoing turmoil” related to the official community plan (OCP). Times Colonist+2Times Colonist+2
• Other senior staff associated with the planning process also left. Times Colonist
5. Concerns over respect, civility, and decision-making
• There have been claims of “autocratic” decision-making, emails/public meeting conduct that some feel marginalize councillors or members of the public. Saanich News+1
• A former councillor resigned after an incident in which he called the mayor “Mr. Hitler,” which he said followed frustrations about how meetings and decisions were being handled. CFJC Today Kamloops

---

What This Suggests

Based on what’s reported, some patterns emerge:

• Polarization & conflict over key issues (housing, community planning, recreation amenities).
• Process complaints are common: people saying they aren’t being heard, that committee or consultation work is undermined or redirected, that decisions have been made without apparent openness.
• High stakes: legal, financial, reputational — e.g. lawsuits threatened, large sums spent or offered, consultant contracts broken.
• Tension between premium public expectations and “rural character” / resistance to change. Many residents seem to prefer little densification; others want more housing. The council seems to be in a difficult spot balancing these.

---

So, is it “Dysfunctional”?

If by “dysfunctional” one means:

• difficulty in making binding or broadly accepted decisions;
• breakdowns in communication;
• lack of trust from parts of the public;
• inability to meet external obligations (e.g. housing targets);
• frequent conflict or procedural irregularities —

then yes, there are real signs that parts of the council are functioning poorly, especially around public engagement, process, and balancing competing priorities.

However, it’s not obvious the council is wholly nonfunctional. It is still making decisions, still engaging in planning (though contentiously), still has governance structures in place, etc.

---

Assessment

North Saanich council appears to be in a state of strained governance. It is facing growing pains: conflicts over development vs rural identity, procedural transparency, and public trust are undermining its ability to act smoothly. Some of its failings are in fulfilling provincially mandated targets (housing), and in handling contentious community issues without alienation.

It’s not an outlier — many municipalities in B.C. are dealing with very similar tensions (see reports on increasing municipality-level dysfunction across the province).

 

Post office is a service, not a business

The ongoing labour strife has got me thinking about what we want from government and what government should provide through our taxes. Should the government offload costly services into so-called business ventures to ease its deficits? Can we afford the same services we've always had? 

Rural communities can be impacted heavily when services are lost. Seniors and those on fixed incomes, too, are often hurt when services are cut. While thinking about this, I sent a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist newspaper. It was published on the 2nd of October:

Contrary to what the media and government may say, the post office did not “lose” $841 million last year.

The post office is a service.

The cost to taxpayers for this service can be debated as to whether it is worth it or not, but the services are there for the public good. Commodifying them is simply a way for governments to fudge their figures. Just like B.C. Ferries, services like the post office, should not be seen as a money maker or loser.

We don’t say the Armed Forces lose money.

We don’t say the RCMP, water works, or highways lose money.

Services have a cost. Whether we are prepared to pay for them is the question, not whether they are profitable.

Times Colonist