To the Honourable Christine Boyle, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs;
The Honourable Brittny Anderson, Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities;
Tara Fagenello, Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Division;
BC’s Inspector of Municipalities c/o LGgovernance@gov.bc.ca
Greetings from Quadra Island,
This letter is a heartfelt, formal request for a comprehensive review of the amendments to Strathcona Gardens Recreation Service, Bylaw 643, which will be crossing your desks imminently. There are relevant facts and precedents which I believe merit a thorough review prior to your approval of Strathcona Regional District’s Bylaw 643 as presented.
I am writing as Director for Area C, Discovery Islands and Mainland Inlets to highlight three significant concerns with this Bylaw: the imposition of $122 million in pre-existing debt onto Quadra Island residents for a project they were not given an opportunity to weigh in on; an assent vote process which dilutes the opinion of Quadra Island residents by a factor of 20:1; and, an absolute absence of community consultation prior to this contentious service bylaw amendment being considered by the Board.
I recognize the heavy lifting and important work that the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs is tackling every day, and the complex portfolio of the Inspector of Municipalities. This letter is accompanied with regrets of the necessity of asking for your help considering the critical work you have underway. Unfortunately, when I raised the above-noted process concerns at the Board table, the SRD’s CAO stated that these concerns were ‘up to the Minister’s office’ to determine if they were valid, and the bylaw was pushed through with a close vote of 7-6.
Pre-existing $122 million in debt
Through two AAP processes over the past 2.5 years, $122 million dollars in debt for the Strathcona Gardens Service has been approved by residents of Campbell River and Area D: both AAP processes excluded residents of Quadra Island/Area C. To now be compelled to join the service and assume the debt is widely described by Quadra Island residents as ‘predatory’. Quadra Island residents are politically engaged and there is a high level of community frustration about being taxed for something they had no say in.
I’ve spoken with Electoral Area Directors from other regional districts and learned there are precedents in regional/subregional services wherein previously approved debt from is prevented from being paid by members of a service added after acquisition of the debt. The Quadra Island community and I believe that taxation requires representation: it is my strong hope that the Inspector of Municipalities believes similarly and will reject Bylaw 643 on these grounds.
Quadra Island residents ‘neutered’ in upcoming assent process
Following three readings of Bylaw 643, the matter of the assent process was considered by the Board. The recommended motion from staff was that approval of the electors be sought through an assent voting process concurrently with the 2026 elections, and that the voting be conducted throughout the entire service area and proposed service area.
An amendment motion, THAT the voting be conducted within each service area and the proposed service area, was narrowly defeated after CAO David Leitch stated that the validity of this concern was best left to the Ministry to determine.
As I see it, there are two serious concerns with the assent vote being conducted throughout the service area and proposed service area: both relate to fairness.
The first serious issue is that there are 40,000+ voters in Campbell River and Area D, while there are just over 2,000 on Quadra Island. Combining the current service area with the proposed service area dilutes the voice of Quadra Island voters by 20:1; meaningful assent from Quadra Island residents is not possible under the proposed voting structure.
The second serious fairness issue is that along with adding Quadra Island as a Service participant at an 80% contribution level, Bylaw 643 proposes to change the contribution structure between Campbell River and Area D to 100% cost for Campbell River and 90% cost for Area D. Adding Quadra Island to the same assent vote question robs Campbell River and Area D residents of the opportunity to weigh in on the contribution adjustment to their service.
Under section 349(5) of the Local Government Act, the Minister may require elector approval in one or more specified participating areas prior to adoption. In light of the lack of meaningful assent, if Quadra Island voters are combined with those of Campbell River and Area D, I urge the Minister to order that Bylaw 643 must receive an exclusive, Quadra Island only, assent process, if it is determined that Bylaw 643 go ahead.
LGA requirements for amending service establishing bylaws
While not a legal scholar, I have spent significant time reviewing the Local Government Act. My understanding of section 349 is that an establishing bylaw may be amended in accordance with the requirements applicable to the adoption of the bylaw that it amends.
Strathcona Gardens Recreation Service was established in 1971. There has not been confirmation from SRD staff on the 1971 assent process. Therefore, wouldn’t the default position be that the Board must obtain approval separately for each participating area in the proposed service area, as per section 342 paragraph 3, “Unless authorized under subsection (4), participating area approval must be obtained separately for each participating area in the proposed service area”? SRD staff pointed to the changes with respect to contribution levels in Campbell River and Area D as nullifying the need for a separate vote on Quadra Island. Please examine SRD’s Bylaw 643 as it relates to sections 349 & 342(3) closely, to test for LGA alignment.
Community consultation
To date the SRD Board has not engaged in any community consultation regarding adding Quadra Island to the Strathcona Gardens Service. In November 2024 I formally moved that an Area C referendum be held prior to any service expansion; the motion was defeated following staff advice that the only time for a referendum was following three readings of a bylaw.
On the reverse, the Area C/Quadra Island community has certainly engaged with the Board. An exclusive assent process for Area C was the ask of a community petition with 1,226 signatures, received by the Board in 2025, as was the ask of close to 300 letters received by the SRD Board (links available upon request), and an e-petition with a further 500+ signatures of Outer Discovery Islands residents.
Recently, in April 2026, I authored a community survey — I wanted to understand Quadra Island residents support for various levels of funding for Strathcona Gardens Service, provide space to hear constituents’ thoughts, and have data to share with the SRD Board.
The survey received 626 responses in 16 days, testament to the high level of engagement on the issue (and perhaps my efforts to ensure inclusivity, with posters & QR codes, sharing via social media, and paper surveys at the library).
On the survey question ‘how important is it to you that the SRD meaningfully consult thru a referendum exclusively with Quadra Islanders prior to adding an annual Strathcona Gardens tax to Quadra Island properties’, 95% of respondents answered, ‘exceedingly important’.
Prior to determining the assent process, the Board received my report with the survey data. And yet, despite the survey results, the petitions, the letters, and the protesters at multiple meetings, the ask of the community was ignored and overruled.
It is highly troubling to me that this clear community request was dismissed and instead passed to the Inspector of Municipalities and Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for ultimate determination. It is the fervent hope of many Quadra residents and myself that meaningful consultation through an assent process exclusively for the proposed expansion area (Quadra Island) be required by the Inspector and/or Minister prior to moving forward with Bylaw 643.
Further, in brief
There are several further concerns which weren’t adequately addressed prior to three readings of Bylaw 643. In brief, these include…
- the data supporting inclusion of Quadra Island within the Strathcona Gardens Service lacks clarity, including citing ferry traffic on a tourism-reliant island as evidence of ‘reasonable access’;
- the report which precipitated this Bylaw amendment missed relevant data, such as how other ‘small island’ areas fund ‘main island’ recreation infrastructure (ie Gabriola, Denman, Hornby, perhaps others);
- Quadra Island residents must take a vehicle on the ferry to access Strathcona Gardens, making it a much more expensive and time-consuming process than for current participants in the Service;
- Quadra Island already substantially funds on-Quadra recreation through taxation, unlike Area D, which solely funds indoor recreation at Strathcona Gardens;
- significant concern for Quadra Island businesses on commercial properties, if they’ll be able to survive this tax increase – the Strathcona Gardens Service taxes commercial properties at 245% of the residential rate, meaning thousands of dollars in additional tax for small rural businesses already working hard to stay afloat;
- Quadra Island is a rural community working on providing basic services like solid waste and woodchipping to build climate resilience (Bard approved for an assent vote in conjunction with 2026 election), and expecting a significant tax increase in the next year, as construction of a new Firehall through the South Quadra Island Fire Improvement District is underway, all while in a cost-of-living crisis.
I truly appreciate your deliberations on the concerns relating to SRD’s Bylaw 643. The importance of a comprehensive examination of the issues on behalf of Quadra Island residents cannot be overstated. I respectfully request that the progress of Bylaw 643 be halted pending resolution of the debt-downloading, assent alignment with LGA, and consultation irregularities. And further that at a minimum, the Minister will order an assent process for Quadra Island which is not combined with that of Campbell River and Area D.
I would like to book a meeting to discuss these concerns at your earliest convenience.
With sincerity, trust, and hope,
Robyn Mawhinney
Regional Director for Discovery Islands and Mainland Inlets (Area C), Strathcona Regional District Discovery Islands-Mainland Inlets, Electoral Area C, is located within the traditional unceded territories of the We Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum, Klahoose, Homalco, Kwiakah, Tlowitsis & K’omoks First Nations. I’m grateful to be living and working on these lands.
Stay up to date on local government happenings: subscribe to Director Reports. This letter is written on behalf of the constituents of Quadra Island and Area C; it doesn’t represent the opinions of the SRD Board.