A motion aimed at increasing transparency around campaign donations and private meetings with developers sparked debate at North Cowichan council’s Sept. 3 meeting. After a lengthy discussion, council voted to refer the policy to staff for legal review and revision.
Mayor Rob Douglas said the motion was intended to protect public trust in land use decisions through improved transparency, disclosure and accountability. If adopted, the policy would create a voluntary framework under which councillors would be expected to disclose campaign donations from people with development interests, consider recusing themselves from decisions where those donors could benefit, and report private meetings with developers, lobbyists and land use consultants.
Recent land use decisions in North Cowichan have prompted public concern, including calls during the Morgan Maples OCP amendment discussion for some councillors to recuse themselves. Morgan Maples is a development underway in Chemainus.
However, in an interview prior to the Sept. 3 meeting, Douglas said there was no specific catalyst for his proposal, noting he introduced it as a notice of motion on Aug. 20, before the Morgan Maples decision.
“There have been public concerns raised over the years about the campaign donations from developers and behind-the-scenes meetings,” said Douglas. “So it’s definitely not a new issue.”
He said similar concerns are being discussed in Colwood and other communities and noted major cities such as Toronto and Ottawa have adopted transparency measures. He sees this as a progressive policy rather than a reactionary one and called this “a chance for North Cowichan to lead across B.C. and beyond.”
Developer contributions and relationships with council members are currently governed by three pieces of legislation. The Community Charter outlines conflict of interest rules. The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act regulates the disclosure of campaign contributions. The Local Government Act sets procedures for land-use decisions such as rezoning.
Douglas said the rules leave gaps. He noted that while corporate and union donations are banned, council members can still receive donations from developers and others with a financial stake in land use decisions.
“There aren't those clear guidelines on how they're to conduct themselves when those applications come before council for a decision,” Douglas said.
While introducing the proposal, Douglas said it would create “a clear ethical framework” that would not only build public confidence but also protect council members from unintentional conflicts or the perception of conflict.
Speaking in favour of the motion, Councillor Christopher Justice called the motion “really important,” and said appearances matter as much as outcomes.
“I really hope we can be a council that is trusted,” he said. “I can live with people thinking we made the wrong call, as long as they believe we made it honestly, with care and for the right reasons. What I can’t accept is that people start to believe our collective decisions are shaped by private interests.”
Justice stressed the intent was not to “demonize developers,” but to increase transparency when donors have active proposals before council.
Others backed the intent of the policy but said the draft was too vague. Councillor Chris Istace said he could support most of it but sought clarity around the definition of “sensitive meetings,” expressing concern it might inadvertently include nonprofits or chambers of commerce engaged in advocacy.
Councillor Mike Caljouw echoed those concerns, calling for clearer definitions.
“What constitutes a developer?” he asked. “Is it someone who's building an ADU? Someone who’s improving their garage? Someone building one house? Two houses? Three? Is it an apartment building? A townhouse complex? A garage for working on cars? What constitutes a developer?”
Caljouw warned that requiring council members to report every contact with developers could create “a chilling effect on communication."
Councillor Tek Manhas argued that donations are already disclosed through Elections BC and existing rules are sufficient. He referenced a legal opinion by municipal law expert Don Lidstone, stating that campaign contributions do not in themselves constitute a conflict of interest, even if the donor later seeks rezoning.
“Donations are a democratic right in Canada,” said Manhas. “I just think this is crazy unless I’m getting a pecuniary interest, which I’ve had in the past, and I’ve recused myself every time. I think I’ve done more recusals around this table than anybody. This is ridiculous.”
Councillor Bruce Findlay, who previously spent nearly three decades in real estate development, argued the policy could turn casual chats with constituents into reportable conflicts. He warned the policy could discourage councillors from meeting residents or swamp staff with low-value paperwork.
“I’d be filling out a full page every single week about who I met,” Findlay said.
Like Manhas, Findlay said the existing guidelines are sufficient.
“Councillors are not required under provincial law to disclose private meetings with developers, lobbyists or residents,” he said. “Some municipalities have adopted voluntary registries, but they’re political tools, not enforceable laws. A local bylaw cannot force disclosure of all meetings because municipalities lack statutory authority to regulate councillors’ personal contacts in that way. Only the province could legislate that, and they have not.”
Douglas acknowledged that any recusal decisions would remain at the discretion of individual councillors.
After debate, Justice moved to refer the motion to staff. Council approved the referral with Manhas opposed. Staff will review legal implications, refine key definitions and examine policies in other jurisdictions including Colwood.
A staff report with legal input and examples from other jurisdictions is expected to return to council for further consideration.
